The dispute began after the company's sole participant discovered tax fines. The former director insisted that he had sent his resignation letter in 2024, and that some of the tax office's decisions were issued in 2025 — after he had left. The court rejected this logic.
In the register, the defendant was listed as director until March 2026. It was the register entry, not the date of the resignation letter, that determined who bears public-law obligations to the tax office. Until the entry is changed, the previous person remains the head for state bodies and counterparties — with all the resulting reporting obligations.
The entry could not be updated for an objective reason: a bailiff had imposed a ban on registration actions back in August 2024, while the defendant himself was still in office. However, the former director did not use an available tool — he did not file an application with the tax office on the inaccuracy of the information about himself in the register. This step does not require lifting the bailiffs' ban and allows one to record that the person does not actually manage the company.
The court of first instance refused to recover 600 roubles for two fines, considering them issued after the resignation. The appeal and cassation courts took a tougher position: the entire amount of 88,300 roubles was recovered. The district court upheld the appeal ruling in full.
The precedent goes beyond tax reporting. An inaccurate entry about the director creates risks of the bank blocking the current account, additional requests from the tax office during desk audits and liability for other public-law obligations of the company — all of which falls on the person who remains the head de jure according to the register.
Former managers in a similar situation should check two things: whether an application on inaccurate information in the register has been filed, and whether there is a valid bailiffs' ban on registration actions. If there is a ban, find out its grounds and seek its removal. The longer the entry remains unchanged, the higher the likelihood that new fines and claims will be addressed to the former director.
Related news:
- OKVED reform 2025–2028: 28% of companies have already had their code changed automatically — how the OKVED reform changes register entries
- Customs passes data on discrepancies in the register to the Federal Tax Service within 3 days — what data customs passes to the FTS on register discrepancies
- Federal Tax Service sets a scale for reducing tax fines up to 10 times — how to reduce a tax fine under the new scale
- Subsidiary liability in 2026: risks for business and managers in bankruptcy — when a manager is liable for the company's debts
