In connection with the circumstances, plaintiff appealed to the Court of Arbitration Perm region with a claim, to recover from the treasury of the Russian Federation through the Federal Tax Service of the Russian Federation of damages in the form of legal fees in the amount of 20,000 rubles. Arbitration Court Perm Region on 23.8.2010, the claims are satisfied. With the decision, the Inspectorate does not agree and believes that the court's findings do not correspond to the facts of the case. The reason for satisfaction of claims court's findings were:-between the defendant's misconduct and the plaintiff's damages arising from a cause-effect relationship, the size of losses incurred does not depend on the size of claims paid, the court does not output based on the correct application of substantive law. 1. According to Art.
15, 1083 of the Civil Code, Part 1, Art. 65 APC person claiming damages caused to him, must prove a violation by another person of his responsibilities (Performing an illegal act or omission), a causal connection between the violations and losses arising from the applicant, as well as the amount of damages. In addition, a person must prove that he accepts all possible measures to prevent (reduce) losses (The Federal Arbitration Court for the Central District case number A14-6351-2008/207/12 from 15.05.2009). The Court did not take into account that the plaintiff is not represented evidence that the Company has taken all necessary measures to reduce or prevent losses. Thus, in accordance with paragraph 6 of Article 100 of the Tax Code, a person in respect of whom tax audit (its representative) in If you disagree with the facts set forth in the act of a tax audit, as well as the conclusions and proposals of the inspectors within 15 days of receipt of a tax audit may provide the appropriate tax authority written objections to the specified act, in whole or in its individual provisions.