Isabella Pipal on the Radio Moscow
Isabella Pipal visited the Radio Moscow and took part in the program “Vse svoyi”.
Isabella Pipal on the radio Moskva FM
“Inostrannosti” – Interview with Polina Ermolaeva on the radio Moskva FM.
Merry Christmas and a Joyful New Year 2017!
Greetings from the General Director of PIPAL ILG Mag. Isabella Pipal.
Austrian master butcher + Austrian Bakery + Foreign Trade Center Moscow = Leberkäse (meatloaf) in Moscow
Pipal Ilg provided legal support to Austrian master butcher Markus Dormayer. In cooperation with Russian business partners meatloaf should in future be produced in Russia under the addition of Markus Dormayer’s know-how. Read the article from Austria’s foreign ministry on Facebook.
A disadvantageous contractual term is an impediment to VAT deduction
Under the terms of the contract, the customer may not dispose of goods before the transfer of title. They are posted to the off balance sheet account. The Ministry of Finance determined that no VAT deduction may be applied in such a situation, because the customer has no right to use the goods in VATable transactions.
The federal laws regulate the procedure for establishing and operation of arbitration courts and permanent tribunals in the Russian Federation as well as arbitration (arbitration proceedings).
From 1 September 2016, information for bank customer identification may be submitted in electronic format
For identification purposes (updating customer information), organisations conducting transactions with funds or other assets may use information furnished by customers in the format of electronic document authenticated by an enhanced encrypted and certified digital signature.
The customer must pay for services if he did not substantiate refusal to sign a services acceptance certificate
The contractor sent services acceptance certificates to the customer, but the latter neither signed them nor stated its reasoned refusal. In this case, the certificates are considered accepted and services must be paid. A similar position has already been encountered in judicial practice.
FTS website: it is not always necessary to notarise a decision on increasing authorised capital
The FTS clarified when limited liability companies do not have to submit a notarised decision on increasing their authorised capital for state registration of alterations to constituent documents. According to the Federal Tax Service, it is not necessary to furnish such a decision if the authorised capital has grown through contributions by other companies taken over by LLCin the course of restructuring.
The court may deny returning money for goods, if the customer has violated the acceptance procedure
The customer demanded to return money for the delivered goods, claiming the goods were of poor quality. The court did not satisfy that demand, explaining that the customer did not comply with the agreed acceptance terms by failing to provide evidence of inadequate quality of the goods. SACRF and other courts also came to similar conclusions.
A delivery contract may stipulate the customer’s right to withhold penalties when making settlements
The parties may agree that the customer has the right to withhold penalties and interest fines from final payments due to the supplier. In the case under review the penalty was withheld for a delayed delivery of goods. In judicial practice, such withholding has been repeatedly found legally acceptable and the situation in point is not an exception. Substantiating its opinion, the court referred to SACRF’s position.
Supplier required charging interest under two articles for one late payment period
The supplier required charging both types of interest to the customer for one late payment period. The Court of Cassation supported the conclusion that such concurrent charging is a double liability.
The court leaves the accepted cassation appeal undecided. Is it lawful?
The cassation appeal submitted by e-mail was accepted for process. The court pointed out the need to furnish the original of the appeal and of the attached documents. The applicant failed to comply with this requirement. The court left the cassation appeal undecided challenging the authorities of the signatory.
Compare and choose:
representative office, branch or OOO (LLC)?