Chizhov is like a tax from Gusev
To please whom did the Federal Tax Service renounce its claims against structures close to Deputy Chizhov?
The Department of the Federal Tax Service for the Voronezh Region partially canceled the decision of its interdistrict inspection No. 16 made in the fall of 2022 on the additional assessment of Chizhov Gallery JSC in more than 752.9 million rubles. This is an amazing case from practice when representatives of a joint-stock company were able to convince tax authorities that the legal entity that sent letters from the same IP address and had common employees was in fact not affiliated and did not inflate VAT.
As reported in the article “With a Confident Legal Entity” by the Kommersant newspaper dated September 20, 2023: “JSC Chizhov Gallery is close to State Duma deputy Sergei Chizhov.” If this is true, the question arises: whether Chizhov’s deputy status played a role in the final decision of the Federal Tax Service, and whether the governor of the region, Alexander Gusev, with whom Chizhov may have been on short terms for a long time, could have helped this.
There was an error
Initially, tax officials believed that during the construction of the third stage of the Chizhov Gallery shopping center, a scheme was allegedly implemented to inflate VAT by inflating the cost of contractors’ services. As if the contractor Stroyinvest LLC acted in concert with the Gallery.
At that time, the head of the Chizhov Gallery was Nina Vasilievna Zolotareva. She left her post in 2020. It was possible to find out that she and the general director of Stroyinvest LLC, Alexander Kolyukaev, previously had a common business project in the Rossiya department store.
If “Gallery” is really close to Chizhov, such coincidences may suggest that the deputy could take part in the affairs of the shopping center. At the same time, Chizhov has been in the State Duma since 2003. And people’s representatives of the lower house of the Russian Parliament are prohibited from owning and managing businesses directly.
Therefore, the fact that until 2023 a number of businesses were registered under the full namesake of Sergei Viktorovich Chizhov suggests bad thoughts. Among them: Anastasia Chizhova Gallery LLC (there are rumors that the deputy may have a daughter with that name), Alliance East Holding LLC, Alliance West Holding LLC, Alliance Management LLC.
Photo: Rusprofile.ru
Therefore, it is very likely that while deputy Chizhov himself sat in the State Duma, instilled patriotism and diligently carried out the orders of voters, his full namesake (maybe even a double – such coincidences happen?) quietly owned shares in a number of assets. Especially in Voronezh, where the current State Duma deputy represented the residents first in the Municipal Council, and then in the Voronezh Regional Duma.
It is not surprising that such a coincidence raised questions for Deputy Chizhov from the media. However, he vehemently denied that he had anything to do with the same Chizhov Gallery, or other assets.
Apparently, such publications caused him so much trouble that he filed a series of lawsuits both against our publication and against some other media outlets, demanding that this information be refuted. But we willingly believe Mr. Chizhov.
And most importantly, the competent authorities and colleagues in the State Duma trust him. After all, if he really turned out to be the owner of the “Gallery”, he could be deprived of his parliamentary powers for the fact of evading the declaration of assets and income.
Rumors that Sergei Chizhov might be behind the Chizhov Gallery could have a negative impact on the business of the shopping center. At the end of 2022, it received a net loss of 745 million rubles – almost the same amount as the taxes the Federal Tax Service initially calculated. The value of assets is also negative – minus 153 million rubles. And this is with revenue of 1.9 billion rubles, which has been growing since 2020.
Photo: Rusprofile.ru
In this case, if the initially calculated 752 million rubles were paid, the business would probably have to be curtailed. Then even deputy Sergei Chizhov would not have been able to save the joint-stock company – however, as you understand, he was out of business.
But this is not the first time that Chizhov Gallery JSC has fought off the claims of tax authorities. At the beginning of 2021, the same Interdistrict Inspectorate of the Federal Tax Service No. 16 for the Voronezh Region made two decisions to hold Chizhov Gallery JSC accountable for committing a tax offense.
During a desk audit carried out in 2020, the tax authorities calculated the amount of the organization’s property tax (we are talking about the third stage of the Chizhova Gallery shopping center, which includes a complex of luxury apartments, on Kukolkina street, 18, with a total area of 77.19 thousand sq. m. ), based on the tax base based on the book value of real estate.
While the company paid tax, calculating the rate based on the cadastral value – about 20 million rubles per year. The difference turned out to be significant; the Federal Tax Service assessed additional taxes to the Chizhov Gallery for a total amount of 177.2 million rubles, including penalties and fines for non-payment.
During the legal proceedings, the AO managed to overturn this decision. At the same time, as reported in the article of the Versiya newspaper entitled “Surviving the 90s” in the issue dated 05/03/2023, the quote: “JSC Chizhov Gallery, founded by State Duma deputy from the Voronezh region Sergei Chizhov.” Apparently, colleagues did not take into account that there can be as many Sergeev Viktorovich Chizhovs in the world as desired.
Partners apart
Returning to the financial situation, is it possible to assume that the joint-stock company can evade paying taxes and put pressure on the fiscal authorities, taking advantage of the fact that the name of the shopping center is similar to the name of an influential deputy? Fear has big eyes. However, there are a huge number of other scandals surrounding JSC.
As is already clear, in JSC Chizhov Gallery we can only talk about the full namesake of the deputy. And this namesake had previously fiercely sued his partners in the Gallery, with whom he implemented the project. We are talking about the company Stroyservis LLC, which belongs to Alexander Mushtaev and Pavel Kakalia. In the joint-stock company they owned 15%, and accordingly, they should have received income from the same share.
Instead, the deputy’s namesake was in no hurry to give them these deductions. Did he really want to take everything for himself and simply ruin his partners? As a result, trials began – Kakalia and Mushtaev demanded from the namesake deputy Sergei Chizhov through the court 442.8 million rubles for “unjust enrichment” and “interest for the use of other people’s funds.”
At the same time, the full namesake of the deputy Chizhov was dissatisfied with such agility of his partners, and filed a counterclaim against Stroyservis. Chizhov’s Gallery demanded from Stroyservis the out-of-nowhere debt under the contract for the construction of the third stage of the shopping center and penalties for the debt under the investment agreement in the amount of 156 million rubles. This is an obvious corporate conflict.
At the same time, perhaps due to lost income from the joint-stock company, Stroyservis went bankrupt. Among other things, he owed a serious amount to Sberbank. Apparently, all this was enough to eventually go to war. According to the conditions reported by the media, Mushtaev and Kakalia could agree to cede their share in the joint-stock company. The same Sberbank agreed to finance the transaction for 2.1 billion rubles with a loan.
Apparently, this is what happened. Currently, Stroyservis is not among the owners of Chizhov Gallery JSC. However, the resolution of the conflict did not help the company of Kakalia and Mushtaev. Their structure is in bankruptcy with losses of 142 million rubles, the value of assets minus 459 million rubles.
State Duma Deputy Sergei Chizhov. Photo: https://infovoronezh.ru/News/Sergey–CHijov–Popavshih–v–creditnuyu–kabalu–lyudey–neobhodimo–zaschitit-67276.html
Let us note that, as reported in the Kommersant newspaper article entitled “Family Value” in the issue dated September 21, 2021: “Hoteliers Pavel Kakalia and Alexander Mushtaev, who built the shopping center together with Sergei Chizhov, newly elected to the State Duma, may agree to cede their share in the building.”
Apparently, in 2021, colleagues from this respected publication also confused the real owner of the joint-stock company, Sergei Chizhov, with deputy Chizhov. But since then, the people’s representative has done a lot of explanatory work with the media. So now there can be no mistake.
Under Gusev’s wing
In addition, they say that the deputy’s namesake, Sergei Chizhov, may be on good terms with Voronezh governor Alexander Gusev. Previously, the governor’s daughter Ekaterina worked at the GC Residence, a premium multifunctional project associated with the delivery and sale of apartments in the center of Voronezh. The office of the structure was located right in the Chizhov Gallery.
At the same time, Ekaterina Guseva allegedly allowed herself liberties that were not available to other employees. For example, she may disappear in the middle of the week, and then return to work on Monday as if nothing had happened. A selective approach, which is certainly agreed upon with the management of the shopping center.
Photo: Rusprofile.ru
Moreover, the namesake of the deputy Sergei Chizhov could even have a common business with the governor’s daughter – Stupino SPA LLC. Previously, Ekaterina Guseva became the owner of 50% of a hotel near Ramonya, which bought a share from the same Chizhov Gallery. Today, Stupino SPA LLC is in the process of liquidation, but still belongs in equal shares to Guseva and Real Estate Chizhova Gallery LLC.
All this suggests that the governor and the namesake of the deputy Chizhov may have some common interests. And when you have a common interest with the governor, even the local Federal Tax Service cannot resist. Maybe this is the secret of JSC’s success in disputes with tax authorities?