Tax ID on Ukrposhta receipts: lawyer explains who and how should fix the confusion over the rules

After Ukrposhta’s statements about printing personal data on paper receipts and the mandatory inclusion of the tax identification number, a wave of questions arose among Ukrainians. The situation became more complicated after the National Bank of Ukraine said that some of the information being circulated does not correspond to current rules.

Key points: Since 1 August, Ukrposhta announced changes to paper receipts for payments. The company said that receipts would print full name, RNOKPP, and the full card number. The NBU denied the information about alleged new requirements making such data mandatory. The regulator emphasized that during cashless payments, the tax ID and the full card number are not mandatory requisites. At the same time, Ukrposhta clarified new rules regarding cash-on-delivery for parcels: the tax identification number will need to be provided regardless of the transaction amount. A lawyer explained what the National Bank should change to avoid disputed situations. How it all started On Monday, 3 August, Ukrposhta announced that from 1 August it will begin printing payers’ personal data on paper receipts for utility and other payments. The company said that, according to NBU requirements, receipts should indicate: the payer’s full name; the taxpayer’s registration number of the payer’s account card (RNOKPP); the full bank card number when paying by card. At the same time, Ukrposhta stated that it does not support such requirements, considers them contrary to international personal data protection standards, and appealed to the NBU, the government, the Verkhovna Rada and the ombudsman with a proposal to review the relevant rules. The company also explained that clients who had previously provided their tax ID when receiving other services do not need to do so again. What the NBU responded The day after Ukrposhta’s statement, the National Bank of Ukraine issued an official clarification. The regulator said it had not established new requirements making the individual tax number (ITN) or the full bank card number mandatory in receipts, and that the information spread by the company does not correspond to current legislation. The NBU emphasized that: during cashless payments, full name and RNOKPP are not mandatory requisites at all; a bank card number may be indicated only in masked form; there are no specific requirements in normative documents solely for Ukrposhta. The regulator also said it would check Ukrposhta’s practice of issuing payment documents after its public statements. The NBU stressed that the discussion about regulation should be based on the exact content of normative documents. Artem Narodenko, head of business support practice at Juscutum, believes the problem lies not so much in the regulatory rules themselves as in the relationship between certain provisions and the practice of their application. "If the regulator believes a given requisite is mandatory in all cases without exception, that requirement should be stated directly and unambiguously in a normative-legal act. If the text allows multiple interpretations or does not contain a direct indication of a universal obligation, there is a risk of different understandings of the requirements among market participants," he explained to RBC-Ukraine. According to the lawyer, any doubts about the content of payment market participants’ duties should ideally be resolved at the level of the normative act, not through separate clarifications. Cash on delivery for parcels: what has changed now On Thursday, 6 August, Ukrposhta CEO Ihor Smiliansky explained another change that concerns cash-on-delivery for postal items rather than utility payments. He said that now, when arranging cash-on-delivery, the tax identification number will need to be provided regardless of the amount of the transaction. At the same time, rules differ depending on the payment size: if the amount does not exceed 5 thousand hryvnias, the operator records the RNOKPP from the client’s statement without supporting documents; if the amount is greater than 5 thousand hryvnias, a document proving the tax number must be presented. Smiliansky emphasized that these requirements concern not only Ukrposhta but all operators providing the relevant financial services. He also suggested that during inspections the National Bank may require operators to additionally verify the correctness of the tax number if it was provided orally. Narodenko notes that the difference between the text of normative acts, official clarifications and inspection practice can create problems for business. "One of the basic principles of the rule of law is the principle of legal certainty. If a normative act, official explanations and control practice effectively form different standards of behavior, that creates significant risks for business. Market participants may act in good faith, relying on the regulator’s official public positions, but face a different approach during an inspection," he said. According to the lawyer, such a situation increases compliance costs for businesses and complicates compliance with regulatory requirements. Why the confusion arose and how to resolve it In fact, two different situations were being discussed simultaneously in the information space. The first concerned issuing paper receipts for payments, about which the NBU said it had not introduced new requirements. The second concerned client identification during financial operations, in particular arranging cash-on-delivery for parcels. It is with such operations that Ukrposhta clarified the procedure for indicating the tax number. In Artem Narodenko’s opinion, if the NBU truly intends to establish a universal obligation to indicate RNOKPP in the relevant cases, this should be expressly fixed in resolution No. 103. According to Smiliansky, this document can be interpreted in two ways. "Clarifications can help form a unified practice of application, but they cannot change the substance of normative requirements or establish new obligations that the resolution itself does not directly provide. Amending the resolution is the most effective way to ensure legal certainty," the lawyer emphasized. He also did not rule out that, given ambiguous interpretation of the norms between business and the regulator, court disputes may arise. "If enforcement measures are applied, a market participant has the right to challenge the relevant decision, in particular citing the ambiguity of normative regulation, the principle of legal certainty and the impossibility of predicting the specific method of fulfilling the requirement that was later taken as the basis for the regulator’s decision," Narodenko said. At the same time, he noted that the prospects of such disputes will depend on the specific circumstances of the case, the content of normative provisions, the NBU’s official clarifications and their application practice.

Also read: