Legal issue: the constitutionality of ‘thin capitalization rules’, as interpreted by the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court and in connection with their implied purpose of suppressing tax abuses.

Ratio decidendi: it follows from the contents of the contested provisions that they do not impose a direct prohibition against deducting from taxable profit the amounts of interest paid under controlled debt obligations. At the same time, paragraph 2 of Art 269 of the Tax Code contains an additional requirement to the amount of the ‘controlled debt’ which the taxpayer should meet in order to include into deductible expenses the full amount of interest paid under such obligations, and this requirement should, according to the explanation given in the judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 15 November 2011 № 8654/11, be regarded as a counteracting measure against tax abuses. In view of the above, there is no ground to believe that the contested legal provisions may within the current regulatory system be regarded as violating the constitutional rights and freedoms of the applicant from the perspective suggested by him.