banner image
Press Release

The Use of Cash Registers (RRO) in Distance Selling: Legitimacy Limits of the Tax Authorities’ Position

04 Jul 2025 4 min read

The issue of the mandatory use of cash registers (RRO) in the field of distance selling, particularly in the sale of goods via the Internet involving couriers and financial intermediaries, remains the subject of heated debate between taxpayers and tax authorities. Despite the existence of established legislative norms and numerous individual tax consultations, tax authorities continue to insist on a broad—and in some cases arbitrary—interpretation of the concepts of “settlement transaction” and “place of sale.”

A striking example of such practice is the conclusions made by tax authorities based on the results of audits of online retailers, where violations of paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 3 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Use of RRO” are cited on the grounds that transactions with buyers were carried out through the logistics operator Nova Poshta LLC and the financial intermediary NovaPay LLC. According to the tax authority, even in cases where the business entity does not directly receive cash or payment cards, it is still obliged to use an RRO.

In their arguments, tax authorities often rely on formal legal constructs that do not contain direct legislative norms capable of confirming a violation. As a result, in practice, we observe situations where the tax authority artificially creates grounds for the use of RRO, referring to circumstances that, in fact, have no legal significance for classifying a transaction as a settlement operation.

1. Legal Nature of a Settlement Operation

According to Article 2 of the RRO Law, a settlement operation is the receipt of cash, payment cards, or other payment means directly from the buyer at the place of sale of goods (services). Therefore, for a transaction to be considered a settlement operation, two conditions must be met simultaneously:

  • Direct receipt of cash or payment card by the business entity (the seller);
  • The transaction takes place at the location of the sale of goods (services).

Thus, if the taxpayer does not participate in the receipt of funds and does not control the payment process, and the payment is made in favor of a third party (e.g., a financial intermediary), there is no basis for applying RRO.

2. What Is Considered a “Place of Sale”?

The RRO Law does not provide a direct definition of “place of sale.” Instead, it defines the “place of transaction” as the physical location where the goods are handed over and payment is received from the buyer. Similar interpretations can be found in related legislation, including Law No. 3817-IX, where the place of sale is understood as the actual location of the handover or shipment of goods from the seller's warehouse.

Therefore, a postal branch or financial institution that receives money from the buyer cannot be considered a place of sale, since the seller is not physically present and does not carry out the settlement operation there.

3. Acceptance of Payment Cards – Only with an Acquiring Agreement

The acceptance of a payment card by a seller is only possible under an acquiring agreement concluded with a bank or another payment services provider. Without such an agreement, the taxpayer lacks the technical and legal capacity to accept payment means, and thus one of the elements of a settlement operation is not fulfilled.

In the case of NovaPay, no acquiring agreement is concluded—the financial institution independently accepts the payment and transfers funds to the seller's account. The seller does not participate in receiving the payment card, cannot identify the transaction in real-time, and cannot fiscally register it.

4. Specifics of Working with NovaPay and Nova Poshta

In the described interaction model:

  • The seller hands over the goods to the courier (Nova Poshta);
  • The buyer pays for the goods at the post office or through the NovaPay online platform;
  • NovaPay transfers the funds to the seller in non-cash form.

In this chain, none of the stages meet the criteria of a settlement operation for the seller, as the latter:

  • Does not receive cash or a payment card (there is no acquiring agreement concluded with NovaPay.);
  • Does not carry out the transaction at the place of sale of goods.
  • It does not record the moment of payment.

Therefore, the use of an RRO (Register of Settlement Operations) by the seller is not mandatory, and the settlement document in this case is another document confirming the transfer of ownership of the goods, in accordance with the requirements of the Law on Consumer Protection, the Law on RRO, and the Law on Electronic Commerce.

Conclusions

The position of the tax authorities insisting on the mandatory use of RROs in situations where the seller does not directly participate in the settlement transaction is legally unfounded and contradicts current legislation. The involvement of freight forwarders and financial intermediaries who independently accept payments does not create an obligation for the seller to use an RRO if both key features of a settlement transaction are absent — the receipt of funds/payment cards and control over the place of settlement.

Tax authorities, by manipulating formal criteria, attempt to expand the scope of the RRO Law to cases that clearly do not correspond to its letter or spirit. This approach requires appeals both administratively and judicially in order to restore the balance between tax control and the taxpayer’s right to conduct business within the legal framework.

Source: Buhgalter 911