In its ruling dated 18 March 2026 No. 309-ES25-9697 in case No. A07-18520/2024, the Judicial Chamber for Economic Disputes of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation considered the issue of a repeated field tax audit.
The position is important for taxpayers challenging repeated control by a higher-level tax authority. The Supreme Court indicated that participation of regional FNS office employees in the first audit does not, by itself, deprive the office of the right to order a repeated audit.
The initial field tax audit for 2021 was conducted by Interdistrict Inspectorate No. 29 for the Republic of Bashkortostan. As a result, the company was assessed RUB 41.4 million in VAT, penalties and fines. The decision was not challenged and was executed.
Later, the FNS Office for the Republic of Bashkortostan ordered a repeated audit for the same period under subparagraph 1 of paragraph 10 of Article 89 of the Russian Tax Code, for the purpose of controlling the activity of the lower-level inspectorate. According to the Office, the initial audit had been incomplete.
The company argued that the repeated audit was unlawful because employees of the Office itself had actively participated in the initial audit. They formed a significant part of the audit team, initiated the main control measures and coordinated the process.
Two lower courts supported the taxpayer, finding that in such circumstances the repeated audit lost its meaning as a tool for controlling the lower-level inspectorate.
The Supreme Court set those decisions aside. The Judicial Chamber held that the Tax Code does not prohibit officials of a higher-level tax authority from being included in the audit team during the initial audit.
The unity of the tax authorities’ system allows redistribution of personnel resources, and the participation of regional FNS employees does not deprive the Office of the right to subsequent control.
The key condition is the existence of a genuine control purpose. In this case, the Office pointed to circumstances indicating that the initial audit had been incomplete. The scale of the discrepancies was material: following the repeated audit, an act was issued indicating VAT and profit tax violations of RUB 477.8 million, more than ten times the initial assessment.
The Supreme Court also commented on the proper method of protection. If the taxpayer disagrees with the results of the repeated audit, it may challenge the decision issued following that audit.
Challenging the actions of auditors taken within the framework of the decision appointing the audit does not, by itself, replace a dispute over the final audit decision.
For companies, this is a reminder that procedural arguments are important, but they should be linked to real procedural violations and to the consequences of the tax authority’s final decision.
Your application has been successfully accepted.
We will contact you shortly.
We have sent an email to your email, please confirm your subscription by clicking on the link in the email.
