Objecting to a Tax Audit Report: How to Draft and File It

A tax audit report is not a verdict, and it is not a decision that automatically takes money out of a business. It is a document that records the position of the controlling authority — and the objections stage is the taxpayer’s first lawful window to influence the outcome, before any tax notice-decision (in Ukraine, a “PPR”) is issued. In my expert practice, well-drafted objections grounded in primary documents and the rules of the Tax Code of Ukraine (PKU) often decide the fate of the entire dispute that follows.

Report or certificate: the difference and why it matters

At the end of an audit the controlling authority draws up one of two documents. Article 86 of the PKU distinguishes them by the outcome of the audit:

• A certificate — if no breach of the law was established.
• A report (an “act”) — if the audit revealed a violation.

The key thing to understand is that an audit report is a carrier of evidentiary information, not a decision of a subject of authority. By itself it creates no obligation for the taxpayer to pay the additional assessment and, under the settled position of the Supreme Court of Ukraine, it cannot be challenged separately in court — the subject of a court appeal is the PPR adopted on the basis of the report, not the report as such.

Yet the report must not be underestimated. All future additional assessments, financial (penalty) sanctions, and sometimes even material forwarded to law-enforcement bodies — in particular the Bureau of Economic Security (BEB) — grow out of its conclusions. So the taxpayer’s task at this stage is not to “win the argument emotionally” but to systematically refute the facts and the legal qualification recorded in the report.

The deadline for objections: 10 working days you cannot miss

Clause 86.7 of the PKU gives the taxpayer the right to file objections to an audit report (or certificate). The deadline is 10 working days from the day following the day the report was received.

Points to watch:

• The period is counted in working, not calendar, days.
• The count starts from the day after the report is received — so the date and manner of service must be clearly documented.
• Together with the objections you may (and should) submit additional documents and explanations.
• Missing the deadline does not strip you of the right to a later administrative or judicial appeal of the PPR, but it does forfeit the earliest and cheapest chance to affect the result.

In practice, it is precisely the “last-day” approach that produces weak objections: the document is thrown together in haste, without the full set of primary records.

The structure of effective objections

Objections are not a letter of disagreement — they are a legal-and-economic document. I recommend the following logic.

1. The formal part

• The addressee (the controlling authority that conducted the audit).
• The taxpayer’s details, the report’s details (number, date), the period and subject of the audit.
• A clear statement of exactly which conclusions of the report the taxpayer disputes.

2. The substantive part — episode by episode

The worst thing you can do is object “in general.” Break the report down into separate episodes (alleged violations) and, for each one, provide the full chain:

Element	What to set out
The report’s conclusion	A verbatim quotation of the disputed finding
The actual circumstances	What really happened, with reference to documents
Primary documents	Specific ones: number, date, counterparty (invoices, acts, payment orders, contracts)
The rule of law	The specific clause/article of the PKU that supports the taxpayer’s position
Case law	Relevant legal positions of the Supreme Court on similar questions

3. The request part

• Ask the authority to take the objections into account and not to issue a PPR on the disputed episodes.
• State your wish to be present at the review (more on this below).
• A list of enclosures.

The main principle: every assertion is backed by a document or a rule. Objections without attached evidence are almost always weak.

Review by the commission: your right to be heard

Objections are reviewed by the authority’s commission for the consideration of objections. There is an important taxpayer right that is often neglected: you may be present at the review and give explanations. To use it, you must state your wish to take part expressly in the text of the objections — then the authority is obliged to notify you of the place and time of the review of the audit materials.

Why it is worth doing:

• A live presence lets you respond to the commission’s queries and convey an argument that does not come across “on paper.”
• You put your active stance on record — which matters for any later court case.
• Sometimes part of the episodes can be removed already at this stage.

On completing the review, the authority either accepts the objections (in full or in part) or rejects them, sending the taxpayer a reasoned response.

The main misunderstanding: objections do not stop the PPR

This is a critical point I always explain to clients. Filing objections does not suspend the procedure for issuing the tax notice-decision. Even where you disagree, the authority will most likely still issue the PPR — simply with (or without) your arguments taken into account.

So the correct attitude toward objections is this: they are not a “final instance” but the first stage of building an evidence base for a subsequent administrative appeal (a complaint to a higher-level controlling authority — the State Tax Service, DPS) or a judicial appeal of the PPR under the rules of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine (KAS). Everything you assert and document now will work for you later. Conversely, an argument not raised at the objections stage tends, later on, to look invented after the fact.

When to bring in an economic expert at the report stage

Many people think of forensic economic examination only once they are in court. In my view, that is too late. If the report’s conclusions concern complex questions — understatement of the object of taxation, the “unreality” of business transactions, the correctness of how expenses or the input VAT credit were formed, the real movement of assets — it is sensible to commission a pre-trial expert economic study already at the objections stage.

What this gives you:

• An independent professional conclusion grounded in primary documents and accounting registers, which you attach to the objections as evidence.
• The language of figures and methodology instead of emotion — exactly what both the commission and, later, the court respond to.
• Early diagnosis of the strong and weak points of your position: sometimes an honest conclusion shows that part of the assessment should be conceded, and effort concentrated on the episodes with a real prospect.

A pre-trial study is carried out using the same economic methods as a court-ordered examination under the Law of Ukraine “On Forensic Expert Examination” and the Instruction on the ordering and conduct of forensic examinations (Ministry of Justice Order No. 53/5). It falls within the specialisms of economic examination (class 11 — studies of accounting, tax records and reporting documents; documents on the economic activity of enterprises; documents of financial and credit transactions). The pre-trial conclusion is then aligned with any court-ordered examination appointed within the administrative case.

Typical mistakes that devalue objections

In my practice the same miscalculations recur most often:

1. Emotion instead of law. “The inspectors are biased,” “this is unfair” — that is no argument. What works is the chain: fact to primary document to rule of the PKU to Supreme Court case law.
2. No supporting documents. The commission is not obliged to take on faith an assertion unaccompanied by invoices, contracts, payment orders and turnover-balance statements.
3. Missing the 10-day deadline — or filing “on the last day” without the full package.
4. Objecting “in general,” without a breakdown into episodes — this blurs your position and makes it easier for the authority to reject it.
5. Staying silent about the wish to be present — effectively surrendering the chance to give oral explanations to the commission.
6. Ignoring case law. Often the question is already settled by a consistent position of the Supreme Court (which can be found in the Unified State Register of Court Decisions) — failing to cite it hands the advantage to the authority.

In brief: what to do after receiving the report

1. Record the date the report was received — the deadline runs from the next day.
2. Break the report down into separate episodes of alleged violation.
3. Gather the primary documents for each episode.
4. For complex questions, commission a pre-trial expert study.
5. Draft the objections on the structure “conclusion, facts, documents, rule, case law.”
6. State your wish to be present at the review.
7. File within 10 working days and keep proof of filing.

---

Objections to a report are not a formality but the first and cheapest opportunity to change the outcome of an audit while no PPR has yet been issued. If the report’s conclusions concern complex accounting or tax questions, examining the situation together with a forensic economic expert already at this stage helps build a position that will hold up before both the commission and the court. If you need an independent professional view on your audit report, get in touch for a consultation or a pre-trial expert study.