Tax Disputes Digest of Current Court Decisions®

Tax Disputes: Digest of Current Court Decisions® |

In our article, you will read a digest of the most relevant decisions related to the settlement of business relations. The material contains the most important acts and demonstrative approaches of courts and judicial bodies.

Tax Disputes: Digest of Current Court Decisions® 5

About electronic evidence

The employee, whose work was traveling, was dismissed for absenteeism. But he does not agree with the management’s decision, so he appealed to the court for protection in tax disputes. To confirm that he had always performed his work duties properly, he provided screenshots containing business e-mails. This data contained all the work reports he had sent via e-mail.

The first two ship instances recognized the dismissal as legal. The Cassation did not agree with the courts and recognized that their opinion that screenshots of correspondence cannot be evidence is wrong. The case was remanded for further consideration, but a direction was given to consider the evidence presented.

The second CSR clarified that any screenshots of correspondence are evidence and can therefore be submitted to a tax or judicial authority.

Whether it is possible to dismiss an employee at his own will, even if the application was sent via messenger, was determined by the sixth Supreme Court of Justice.

The employee decided to resign at his own will and sent a copy of the document via messenger. But after that, he suddenly went to court, because he decided to appeal the dismissal.

The first court decided that the dismissal was illegal, since such a procedure necessarily required a written statement. However, the cassation and appeal did not agree with this and indicated that the full set of circumstances should be taken into account. The legality of the employee’s desire to leave is directly affected by the date of approval of his dismissal, the termination of his employment duties, and the absence of requests from the management to withdraw the dismissal application.

About labor contracts

The Supreme Court clarified whether it is possible to enter into an open-ended contract with another employee during the employee’s absence.

One of the employees was absent for some time and another person was invited to fill his position. An indefinite contract was concluded with him. After some time, the absent employee returned, and the one who replaced him was immediately fired. He did not agree with this decision and appealed to the court.

The two first instances supported the employer, as the workplace should be preserved for the absent employee as a prerogative. The company had no right to enter into an open-ended contract with the plaintiff, and that contract was terminated as soon as the absent employee returned.

The case was sent for additional consideration – with the condition of consideration of the actual term of concluding a contract with a new employee. The court also emphasized whether the temporary employee knew that he was concluding an indefinite contract with the company, not a temporary one.

The Social Insurance Fund has the full right to reclassify the relationship as an employment relationship, and also has the right to charge insurance contributions.

As a result of the on-site inspection, the Social Insurance Fund concluded that the company did not pay insurance premiums in relation to some individuals. The Foundation believed that they were not working under civil law, but under labor relations. He also made an independent decision to hold this company accountable and compel insurance premiums. The company, of course, did not agree with such a decision and appealed to the court.

The fund received support from cassation and appeal. The courts paid attention primarily to the systematic and personal nature of how the work was performed, the control of the performance of the work on behalf of the company, as well as the performance of the functions that should have been fixed in the contract. Courts considered that such reclassification was completely illegal, and the Fund calculated the contributions on legal grounds.

Tax disputes: a digest of current court decisions® 7

About responsibility

The fact that refusal to undergo a medical examination is a disciplinary violation is confirmed by the ninth KSYU.

Example. The employee of the company was dismissed in connection with a systematic violation of discipline. She refused to undergo the required psychiatric examination. As a result, the case went to court and reached cassation.

The position of the company was supported by all the courts, the worker was recognized from the category of persons who must undergo a mandatory examination. In connection with these arguments, her dismissal was recognized as completely legal.

About absenteeism

The Supreme Court recognized that if the leave was agreed with the employer verbally, then dismissal for absenteeism is illegal.

Example. The employee of the company was dismissed for absenteeism. She did not agree with the management’s decision and appealed to the court. As evidence, she reported that she applied for leave and was given verbal consent. Three courts sided with the employer and held that no written leave agreement had been reached between the two parties, and therefore the worker was absent without any valid reason, so the dismissal was legal.

About staff reduction.

The second CSR explained to us all the details about whether it is necessary to offer the employee a new position when the position is reduced.

Example. An employee was dismissed due to downsizing. Of course, he did not agree with such a decision and was forced to file a lawsuit. In court, he explained that he was not offered other vacancies.

The courts of the first two instances supported the employer, but the cassation sent the case for additional consideration. In the end, the third instance of the court explained that the employee should have been offered other vacancies due to the reduction of his position. The court recognized such dismissal as illegal. Also, this other position should be offered even when a new potential employee applies for this position.

The seventh KSVV determined: if the employee was informed about the reduction late, this is discrimination.

Example. As a result of downsizing, several employees were dismissed from the company. One of them was informed about it almost a month later than the rest. At the time of notification, all of the other employees being made redundant had taken other positions, so only one employee was laid off. He did not agree with this situation and filed a lawsuit, as he decided that the management was illegal. The company said the late notice was because the employee was on vacation at the time.

The company’s actions were considered legal only by the first instance of the court, and the cassation and appeal were on the side of the dismissed plaintiff. They indicated that only this employee was actually fired, and that his being on leave and the late notice as a result had limited his social security benefits as much as possible. In addition, the employer did not take into account the claimant’s right at a time when other employees had already transferred to other positions during the downsizing.

You may be interested


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top