The Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine has adopted the Resolution “Some issues of providing one-time in-kind aid “baby package” at birth, which, in particular, approved the procedure for providing a child with one-time in-kind aid “baby package” at birth from the state budget.
Parents whose children were born before October 23, 2020 inclusive and who did not receive the “baby package”, receive monetary compensation for the cost of one-time in-kind aid “baby package”.
Parents whose children were born after October 24, 2020 will be able to receive one-time in-kind aid “baby package” within 30 days from the date of birth of the child.
In case of non-receipt of the “baby package” due to circumstances beyond the control of the parents, they will receive monetary compensation for the cost of the one-time in-kind aid “baby package”.
From July 1, 2021, parents have the right to choose between a one-time in-kind aid “baby package” and monetary compensation for its cost.
It also introduces the possibility of receiving one-time in-kind aid “baby package” or monetary compensation as part of the complex service “yeMalyatko”.
The Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine by the Resolution “On some issues of providing state guarantees on a portfolio basis in 2020” has supported the introduction of portfolio guarantees from the state on loans to small and medium-sized businesses.
The Resolution defines the mechanism for the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine to provide state guarantees to ensure partial fulfillment of debt obligations under the portfolio of loans of creditor banks provided to micro, small and/or medium-sized enterprises.
In addition, the resolution establishes the procedure for selecting banks that have the right to receive such guarantees, and the conditions for providing state guarantees on a portfolio basis.
At the same time the resolution amends the Procedure for providing financial state support to micro and small businesses, approved by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine by Resolution No. 28 of January 24, 2020, in terms of the possibility of combining interest rate compensation provided under this procedure with the provision of state guarantees on a portfolio basis.
State guarantees on a portfolio basis should be provided in the amount specified by the Law of Ukraine “On the State Budget of Ukraine for 2020” (UAH 5 billion).
The Ministry of Finance of Ukraine by Order No. 561 of September 15, 2020 has approved changes to the Procedure for providing documents of a large taxpayer in electronic form during a documentary audit, approved by Order of the Ministry of Finance No. 1393 of November 7, 2011 (hereinafter – Procedure No. 1393).
With the entry into force of these changes, this Procedure will determine the general format and structure of submission of documents by large taxpayers (hereinafter – LTP) at the request of the supervisory authority in electronic form during control and verification activities.
Moreover, the Ukrainian version of the tax audit file (SAF-T UA) is taken as the basis of the proposed format for submitting documents in electronic form. This version of the tax audit file (SAF-T UA) has been revised by the State Tax Service taking into account the requirements of tax legislation and methodology of tax control.
In this regard, it is envisaged to supplement Procedure No. 1393 with an appendix, which will define the list, structure and format of the standard audit file (SAF-T UA).
The preparation of SAF-T UA is provided in terms of reporting periods, accounting accounts, types of documents and transactions, counterparties, types of assets and liabilities.
Such data must be obtained from taxpayers in electronic form to confirm the accuracy of financial statements, verify the correctness and completeness of the pre-tax financial result in accordance with NAS or IFRS, determine the completeness and timeliness of accrual (payment) of taxes and fees in the budget at their working off during e-audit.
This order will enter into force nine months after its official publication.
The Ministry of Finance of Ukraine has approved the regulatory framework for certification and continuous training of auditors. At the request of Art. 19 of the Law of Ukraine “On Audit Financial Statements and Auditing” the Ministry of Finance has approved a number of regulations regarding the regulation of certification and continuing professional training of auditors, in particular, the Procedure for certification exam for auditors and Procedure for continuous professional training of auditors.
The documents set:
- the procedure for organization, conducting and processing the results of theoretical and qualifying exams which the candidates for auditors take during the process of certification to obtain the qualification of auditor, as well as for distribution of funds received in the form of fees for exams;
- the conditions and volume of crediting the theoretical knowledge of candidates for auditors when obtaining the qualification of auditor;
- the procedure, scope, duration and organization of internship for the candidates for auditors and to gain practical experience through employment with the auditing entity;
- forms, types, scope, duration, terms and procedure for monitoring the auditor’s continuous professional training.
The National Bank of Ukraine by Resolution of the Board No. 148 of November 23, 2020 “On approval of Amendments to the Instruction on cash transactions by banks in Ukraine”, which enters into force on December 1, 2020, modernized a number of rules related to cash transactions of banks and collection companies.
In particular, we the following changes will be made.
- When conducting cash transactions to identify and verify the client or representative, banks will be able to use a digital passport or digital passport in the mobile application “Action” (in the manner prescribed by the regulations of the National Bank on financial monitoring by banks).
- The procedure for banks to accept national currency banknotes and coins that are doubtful about the authenticity and payment, and foreign currency banknotes that are doubtful about the authenticity is simplified. In the relevant certificate, instead of passport data, the client must provide contact information (telephone number and/or e-mail address).
- Collection companies will be subject to certain requirements that previously applied only to banks. It is necessary to seize and transfer suspicious banknotes for research to the National Bank, as well as to seize and transfer banknotes dyed with a special solution as a result of unauthorized interference with a special device for storing valuables, to law enforcement agencies.
Such innovations will help to simplify the conduct of cash transactions of banks when providing services to customers, as well as improve the quality of the national currency cash in circulation.
The State Tax Service of Ukraine in individual tax consultation No. 4437/ІПК/99-00-07-05-01-06 of October 27, 2020, has explained how to act in a situation when payment is received outside working hours, and it is impossible to provide a check at the time of receipt of payment.
The tax authorities have noted that in cases of receipt of payment for goods (services) outside working hours, it is necessary to apply PTR and/or SPTR on the basis of an extract from a financial institution on the receipt of funds no later than the next day, observing the chronology of settlement transactions.
Note that the fiscal authorities used not quite the correct wording “no later than the next day”, because the most logical would be “no later than the next business day”, since, as an example, payment can arrive on Saturday (non-business day) and a banking institution can generate an extract, but Sunday will be the next day, which is a non-working day and the PTR/SPTR will only be used on Monday.
The Tax Service of Ukraine in individual tax consultation No. 4453/ІПК/99-00-05-06-02-06 of October 28, 2020 has considered the case when a value added tax payer receives from different suppliers similar goods with the same code according to UKT FEA, but the name of which is different. And the taxpayer intends to carry out their further delivery on one nomenclature which plans to define independently.
The tax authorities are convinced that the possibility of combining goods with different names into homogeneous groups, which fall under the definition of identical or homogeneous, is within the competence of the enterprise and should be determined by an appropriate order in its accounting policy.
However, it should be kept in mind that such homogeneity can be created if the change of the product name does not lead to a change in the UKT FEA code.
In addition, the tax authorities noted that the details “Description (nomenclature) of goods/services of the seller” (column 2) of the tax invoice must correspond to the wording in the primary documents accompanying the supply of such goods, but should not contain other information.
The Supreme Court of Ukraine by its decision of October 27, 2020 in case No. 804/3566/17 pointed out the illegality of inspections of the State Labor Service on the basis of information from the Pension Fund of Ukraine (hereinafter – the Pension Fund). In the list of grounds for unscheduled inspection of the State Labor Service there is no such ground as the appeal of legal entities, state bodies about violations of labor legislation. The grounds for unscheduled inspections of regulatory authorities are defined in Part 1 of Art. 6 of Law No. 877-V.
In the case before the Supreme Court, the company and the territorial body of the State Labor Service, which inspected and imposed fines, had a dispute.
The basis for the unscheduled inspection were letters from the Pension Fund management, which contain information about insurers-employers whose employees (insured persons) in December 2016 (January 2017) had an accrued salary at or below the minimum. However, the unscheduled inspection was not limited to the calculation of salaries to employees at or below the minimum.
The courts of first and appellate instance satisfied the claims of the enterprise. After all, labor inspectors conducted an unscheduled inspection not only on the issue set out in the Pension Fund letters, but also on other issues, as a result of which other violations of the requirements of labor legislation were established. Therefore, the unscheduled inspection was conducted in violation of Art. 6 of the Law No. 877-V, which means that there are no legal consequences of such inspection.
The Supreme Court agrees with this, and therefore, deciding on the unscheduled inspection on the basis of a letter from the Pension Fund management to establish the calculation of wages at or below the minimum wage, the State Labor Service acted outside its powers and in violation of applicable law. Therefore, the court points out that the decisions made as a result of such inspection cannot give rise to legal consequences for the plaintiff.
The Supreme Court of Ukraine by its decision of November 4, 2020, in case No. 753/1181/18 allowed the employer upon dismissal under Art. 38 of the Labor Code (at employee’s own request) to dismiss an employee from the position at the employee’s request earlier than two weeks without specifying the reasons, but with the date of dismissal.
The considered labor dispute was that on December 7, 2015 the employee applied for voluntary dismissal on the same day – from December 7, 2015. However, the next day, December 8, 2015, due to ill health, the employee went to the doctor, received a sick leave and on the same day sent a letter to the employer by courier to withdraw the application for dismissal from December 7, 2015. But despite this, after completing the hospital stay, the employee went to work, where was notified of the dismissal on December 7, 2015.
According to the employee, the order on the dismissal is illegal, because in violation of Art. 38 of the Labor Code, the employee was fired before the expiration of two weeks from the date of notification of the employer of dismissal.
However, the Supreme Court points out that in compliance with the content of Art. 38 of the Labor Code, the parties to the employment contract have the right to agree on any period of dismissal after the employee submits a statement to that effect within two weeks. If the employee agrees, he/she can be fired even on the day of the application for dismissal.
Therefore, the Supreme Court of Cassation considers that the appellate court came to the correct conclusion that there were no grounds to satisfy the claim for reinstatement of the employee. The dismissal was carried out on the initiative of the employee with a request to dismiss on a date set by the employee, and therefore the plaintiff had the right to withdraw the application for dismissal only until the moment of dismissal.
