Is MOBIN good? How we rescued advertisers from unjustified tax benefit

For several years, one of our major clients has been the international advertising agency Dentsu (or rather one of its Russian subsidiaries, OOO Amnet). Recently, it again approached us with a request for help. The reason for contacting was the supplemental tax assessments from tax authorities in the amount of 22 million 448 thousand rubles. It is an unjustified tax benefit for advertisers, according to the Federal Tax Service. 

The point is that the inspectors during the on-site tax audit were interested in the documentation that deals with the cooperation of OOO Amnet with OOO MOBIN. It is also a large IT company, and it is one of the residents of the Skolkovo Innovation Center. 

Particularly, the most suspicious was an agreement on contextual Internet advertising placed by advertisers of OOO Amnet for Aeroflot. OOO MOBIN was supposed to place it directly. But actually another company has posted it. This company as well as OOO MOBIN is part of the OTM group (the OTM platform allows algorithmic purchases of advertising on mobile devices and stationary computers). 

According to Andrey Kriulin, the head of the tax practice of the Tsentrany Okrug Law Firm, who was dealing with this case, the tax authorities suspected a devious scheme of tax avoidance. The tax inspection charged our client cooperation with empty shell companies in the second and each successive stage of the chain of relationships. Also, it charged our client with non-payment of VAT by our client's counterparty. And, accordingly, the lack of budget for the deduction of VAT announced by our client. All this threatened him with huge financial losses. Andrey Kriulin says that the only way out of this difficult situation was a judicial appeal. 

When preparing a case, our lawyers developed a line of defense based on four main arguments: 

1. Services for placing advertisements and promotional materials on the Internet, that were provided to our client OOO Mobin were real. We prepared and provided to the court all contracts of the chain of relationships from OOO MOBIN to the final customer PAO Aeroflot, as well as primary documents for them (Service Provision Reports, bill of parcels, etc.). These contracts confirmed that services were provided in the European Union, Great Britain, China, Japan and several other countries. 

2. OOO MOBIN had the necessary staff for the actual provision of services. Moreover, OOO MOBIN had the most staff members (31 people) of the whole OTM group.

3. OOO MOBIN had signs of a company actually dedicated to the promotion of customers on the Internet. Ranging from the most suitable OKVED, and ending with the unique software package, which no other competitor had.

4. In the budget of a company has been already formed a source for deducting VAT on contested services. The attached decision to the case file on the on-site tax audit concerning OOO MOBIN as well as the fact that OOO MOBIN has paid the VAT arrears confirmed it.

 
The Moscow Commercial Court declared the decision of the tax inspectorate invalid in full. It was proved that OOO Amnet acted prudently when choosing OOO MOBIN as its contractor. In fact, all participants in this dispute formed part of the same transaction and provided services for placing contextual advertising on the Internet. The end customer of which was PAO AEROFLOT abroad. This was confirmed by the tax reports from open sources that were presented by us and that were recommended by the Federal Tax Service for due diligence. These reports confirmed that when the client concluded an agreement with OOO MOBIN, it did not have any signs of an empty shell company.