The woman appealed to the Kyiv District Administrative Court to challenge additional tax assessments for foreign income received in 2022 from the British company Fenix International Ltd, associated with the OnlyFans platform.
The woman appealed to the Kyiv District Administrative Court to challenge additional tax assessments for foreign income received in 2022 from the British company Fenix International Ltd, associated with the OnlyFans platform.
According to the court, Ukrainian tax officials received information from the competent authority of the United Kingdom about the income of Ukrainian citizens from Fenix International Ltd. The list included the plaintiff, who was credited with receiving $60,879 for creating content on OnlyFans in 2020–2022.
The State Tax Service Headquarters in Kyiv sent her a request demanding to provide explanations and documents regarding this income. The plaintiff responded by stating that she did not receive the funds and therefore could not provide the relevant documents.
After that, the tax office conducted an unscheduled documentary on-site inspection. Based on its results, the regulatory body determined that in 2022 the plaintiff received UAH 2.226 million in foreign income that she did not declare. The tax office assessed UAH 400,726.76 in personal income tax and UAH 33,393.90 in military duty.
Taking into account the penalties, the tax notices-decisions provided for the payment of UAH 500,908.45 in personal income tax and UAH 41,742.38 in military duty. Separately, the tax authority applied fines of UAH 8,000, UAH 1,020, and UAH 340.
In total, as of June 25, 2025, the tax office indicated a debt of UAH 552,010.83. A decision was also made to list the plaintiff's property as a tax lien.
The plaintiff requested the annulment of the inspection order, tax notices, tax demand, and property inventory decision. Among the defense arguments was the assertion that during part of the disputed period she was a minor and could not earn relevant income or create content on OnlyFans.
The court disagreed with these arguments. It found that the tax authority had legitimate grounds for conducting the audit, including receiving information about possible foreign income, and that the taxpayer had not provided the requested documents. The court also noted that the audit order had been properly served.
As a result, the court concluded that the fact that the plaintiff received income from a source outside Ukraine is proven, but this income was not declared and the relevant taxes and fees were not paid. Therefore, the court did not establish grounds for canceling the tax decisions, requirements and decisions on the inventory of property.
According to the court decision of September 9, 2026, the court rejected the claim in full. The decision can be appealed within 30 days.
