For Ukrainians who have been living abroad for a long time, the issue of changing tax residency has shifted in recent years from the realm of theoretical discussion to that of harsh reality. The risk of double taxation of income is particularly relevant for citizens who reside abroad for more than 183 days.

Most Ukrainians are under the illusion that simply staying outside Ukraine for more than 183 days is sufficient to automatically acquire non-resident status in Ukraine.

However, the reality is much more complex: resident status entails the obligation to pay taxes on worldwide income, and the state, through the tax service, is in no hurry to let its taxpayers go.

At the heart of the conflict lies the hierarchical system of criteria in the Tax Code of Ukraine, where owning a home in Ukraine, registering a business (as a sole proprietor), or having one’s family reside there are considered decisive factors in determining the “center of vital interests.” Even if a person has not crossed the Ukrainian border for years, tax authorities often use citizenship as a “last line of defense,” arguing that if another jurisdiction cannot be determined, the person remains a resident based on their passport. This creates a situation of dual residency, the resolution of which falls on the shoulders of taxpayers.

Until recently, lawyers desperately tried to establish the fact of loss of resident status through separate civil court proceedings. The logic seemed simple: obtain a court ruling stating that, as of a certain date, the individual is a non-resident, and use it as a “shield” against tax authorities. However, the Supreme Court’s Resolution of February 26, 2026, in Case No. 644/3563/25, has definitively closed that door. The Supreme Court ruled that such status is not merely a “legal fact” that can be established beyond dispute, as there is an underlying dispute with the state. Moreover, the Supreme Court emphasized that such status cannot be established “just in case” or without reference to a specific tax dispute. Such facts may only be clarified during appeals against specific tax authority decisions, such as penalties for undeclared foreign income.

A more effective—albeit significantly more complex—approach is to file an administrative appeal through individual tax consultations. The taxpayer has the right to request clarification from the State Tax Service regarding their situation by providing a detailed description of their personal circumstances. As demonstrated by the practice of the Second Administrative Court of Appeal (Case No. 440/7564/24), the State Tax Service of Ukraine often attempts to avoid giving a direct answer by simply citing provisions of the law. In the aforementioned case, the court sided with the taxpayer, noting that a consultation cannot be a mere copy of the tax code but must contain a specific conclusion regarding the taxpayer’s status based on their actual circumstances. This decision is fundamental, as it compels the tax authority to officially recognize a change in an individual’s center of vital interests when there is sufficient evidence to support it.

However, success in court depends first and foremost on the taxpayer themselves. The process of severing ties with Ukraine’s tax system must be comprehensive and consistent. The first and most important step is to terminate the status of an individual entrepreneur. The existence of an active or even “dormant” individual entrepreneur is nearly 100% proof of a center of economic interests in Ukraine, which undermines any arguments regarding residence abroad. The next step is to gather the non-resident’s documents, which include a tax residency certificate from another country, long-term lease agreements, utility bills from abroad, and proof of business registration or employment in the country of residence. Officially registering a move to a permanent place of residence (PPR) through the immigration authorities also significantly strengthens one’s position, although formally it is not conclusive proof of non-residency.

In summary, it is important to recognize that ceasing to be a tax resident of Ukraine is not a legal loophole but a real life change that must be supported by documentation. Only by combining the actual relocation of one’s life interests abroad, the closure of a business in Ukraine, and a willingness to engage in a protracted administrative dispute can one achieve the desired result and avoid the burden of double taxation.