Projects
Our Real Estate Practice’s lawyers provided comprehensive legal support to a leading European car manufacturer which enjoys the same prominence on a global scale. The development project the client implemented in Moscow included the construction of an individual building and the subsequent purchase of A-class warehousing facilities with an area of 60,000 sq.m. The value of the transaction was estimated at around USD 80 million.
Our Real Estate Practice's lawyers represented clients in court proceedings against the government of Moscow Region. The matter in dispute was a failure to include seven shopping malls in the cadastral register for taxation purposes based on their cadastral value. Our lawyers successfully challenged the unfair tax amounts assessed on these real estate items.
Our Real Estate Practice’s lawyers have developed and assisted with a transaction of a major Russian diamond-mining company to purchase office premises in Moscow. The total floor area of the buildings was 11,500 sq.m. while the transaction value amounted to USD 90 million.
Pepeliaev Group’s lawyers represented a client to which a tax authority had assessed additional profit tax on several grounds based on the results of a field tax audit. In doing so, the tax authority did not recognise a court decision which had been previously handed down in favour of the company, insisting that it had a right to specify additional grounds and ignore the previous court decision. Our lawyers managed to defend the client’s position on this point. The court stated that the tax authority should in any case comply with the previous decision of the court. And therefore the court has defended one of the fundamental principles of law that all state authorities should comply with court decisions. The total amount in dispute exceeded RUB 90 million.
Our lawyers successfully provided support during two field tax audits of a famous producer of confectionery. The objections drawn up by our lawyers and a discussion of them with the tax authority allowed litigation to be avoided. In the first case we managed to convince the tax authority that there was no justification for its conclusions that there was a reduced price for products sold for export. In the second case the objections were accepted with regard to conclusions that the taxpayer had overstated the expenses on payment for intra-group services from foreign companies of the group.