The Eighth Administrative Court of Appeal confirmed the legal position important for the entire legal community: lawyers as independent professionals are not required to use cash registers (RRO) or payment terminals. This decision is another step towards affirming the independence of the legal profession and distinguishing its status from economic entities.
Case Background
The tax authority of Rivne region imposed an administrative fine on lawyer K. for an alleged violation of Art. 163-15 of the Code of Administrative Offenses — due to the absence of a terminal for non-cash payments. The basis was the payment by the client of legal services in cash, which was confirmed by a fee receipt submitted to the court in a civil case where the lawyer represented a party against the structures of Rivne City Council.
Based on this, the tax service initiated a factual check, drew up a report, and later issued a decision to impose a fine of 3400 UAH.
However, the first-instance court overturned this decision, and the ruling was upheld by the appellate instance.
Legal Content of the Decision
The Lviv Court of Appeal found the decision of the tax service to be illegal, based on the following key arguments:
1️⃣ Lawyer is not a business entity under Art. 163-15 of the Code of Administrative Offenses
According to the Tax Code of Ukraine (sub-paragraph 14.1.226 of paragraph 14.1 of Art. 14), lawyers are self-employed individuals engaged in independent professional activities, not entrepreneurs. This is confirmed by:
-
a special law — “On Advocacy and Advocacy Activities”;
-
the practice of the Supreme Court (ruling in case No. 727/4597/19).
Therefore, lawyers are not subject to the legislation on RRO, in particular Law No. 265/95-VR.
2️⃣ Tax inspection should have been carried out regarding the lawyer, not the individual entrepreneur
Although K. is registered as an individual entrepreneur with the activity code 69.10 (legal assistance), the courts reasonably pointed out: in fact, legal assistance was provided in the capacity of a lawyer, not an entrepreneur. The inspection was conducted based on the statement of the party to the judicial process, not on economic activity.
All documents (directions, inspection report, protocol) related to legal practice, not to individual entrepreneurship.
3️⃣ RRO do not apply to legal practice
Law No. 265/95-VR regulates the activities of business entities in trade, public catering, and services. It does not cover lawyers, nor does it establish specific requirements for fee documentation.
Terms such as “seller,” “buyer,” “price,” “service” are not applicable to lawyer-client relationships regulated by special law.
There is also no mandatory form for the document confirming the fee payment. A lawyer has the right to provide a receipt, a certificate, or another document in any form.
4️⃣ Procedural requirements for drafting the protocol were violated
The court found that the protocol and inspection report lacked specific data on the date, time, and circumstances of the offense, with no clear description of the administrative violation.
Judicial Interpretation and Consequences
The appellate court emphasized:
A lawyer is not a “trader” within the meaning of the Law on Payment Services, and therefore is not subject to mandatory use of electronic payment tools.
The decision also relies on the ECHR practice (case “Seryavin and Others v. Ukraine,” §58), according to which judicial decisions must contain clear reasoning, and authorities must act within the limits of the law.
Conclusion
- A lawyer providing legal assistance operates within the scope of independent professional activity not regulated by the RRO Law.
- Tax authorities are not entitled to demand the use of a payment terminal or RRO when paying a lawyer’s fee if the activity is not carried out as an individual entrepreneur.
- The fact of registration as an individual entrepreneur does not change the essence of legal relations if legal assistance is provided as a lawyer.
This decision sets an important legal precedent that can be used by lawyers throughout Ukraine to protect against unjustified checks, fines, and administrative pressure.
The decision has legal force and is not subject to cassation appeal.