Desk Control, Tax Audits and Appeals in Kazakhstan in 2026: Tax Code 214-VIII, the Administrative Procedure Code and Three Routes to a Dispute

September 1, 2026

Since 1 January 2026 tax control in Kazakhstan has been governed by a new Tax Code — Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 214-VIII of 18 July 2025, which replaced Code No. 120-VI of 25 December 2017. More than the article numbering changed: desk control no longer issues a “notice to remedy breaches” but a notice of discrepancies; tax control has been narrowed to tax audits alone; and the limitation period has split into three and five years by taxpayer category. The appeal architecture remains double and asymmetric: one notification may go either to the Ministry of Finance or straight to court, while every other notification passes through the general pre-court procedure of the Administrative Procedure Code.

Important. Pre-court appeal against a tax audit notification is not a precondition of going to court in Kazakhstan. Article 91(5) of the Administrative Procedure Code permits a direct claim “unless otherwise provided by law”, and Article 194(1)(4) of the Tax Code expressly requires the authorised body to refuse to consider a complaint where the taxpayer has already filed a court claim on the same questions — a provision that could not exist if the complaint were mandatory. The claim that a court will not accept a case without a prior appeal to the Appeal Commission imports the Russian model and does not match the Kazakh text in force.

The economics of choosing a route reduce to one number: late-payment interest accrues daily at 1.25 times the National Bank base rate, and appealing does not stop it. At the base rate of 16.75% in force from 27 July 2026, that is 20.9375% per annum — roughly 0.057% for every day the dispute runs.

Key parameters as at August 2026

Parameter	Position in 2026	Provision
Principal instrument	Tax Code of Kazakhstan, Code No. 214-VIII of 18.07.2025, in force 01.01.2026	—
The Code’s only amending law	Law No. 308-VIII of 11.06.2026, in force 01.07.2026	arts. 23, 55, 56, 332, 335, 370, 664, 665, 668, 670, 672, 677
Name of the desk control notification	Notice of discrepancies identified by desk control	art. 82(1)(4), art. 137(3)
Time for the tax authority to serve it	30 working days following the day desk control is completed	art. 82(1)(4)
Time for the taxpayer to comply	30 working days from the day after service	art. 82(2)
Notice confirming a supply actually took place	10 working days to comply	art. 82(2)
Account freeze on non-compliance	1 working day after the compliance deadline expires	art. 137(9), art. 86
Forms of tax audit	Comprehensive, thematic, counter-audit, time-and-motion survey	art. 152(1)
Base audit period	30 working days from service of the audit order	art. 163(1)
Maximum with extensions	50 / 160 / 180 working days by category	art. 163(2)–(5)
Absolute ceiling for art. 163(2) and (3) audits	180 calendar days, except large business and foreign information requests	art. 163(3), second paragraph
Objection to the preliminary audit act	15 working days from the day after service	para 7 of the Rules, MoF Order No. 627
Tax audit notification	5 working days from service of the audit act	art. 83(1)(1)
Time to comply with the audit notification	30 working days from the day after service	art. 83(2)
Complaint to the Ministry of Finance	30 working days from the day after service	art. 192(1)
Time to decide the complaint	30 working days; 45 for taxpayers under tax monitoring	art. 195(1)
Court claim	1 month	arts. 136(1) and 136(6) APC
Limitation period	3 years; 5 years for four categories	art. 65(2)
Late-payment interest	1.25 × base rate (0.65 for horizontal monitoring)	art. 5(2)
Monthly calculation index (MCI) for 2026	KZT 4,325	art. 7 of Law No. 239-VIII of 08.12.2025

The legal framework: what is in force and what has been repealed

The legal basis for desk control, tax audits and appeals in Kazakhstan in 2026 consists of four codes, six Ministry of Finance orders and two normative resolutions of the Supreme Court. Only instruments in force are listed below; Code No. 120-VI of 25 December 2017 has been repealed and cannot support any conclusion about a taxpayer’s position in 2026.

The codes

The Tax Code — Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 214-VIII of 18 July 2025 “On Taxes and Other Obligatory Payments to the Budget (Tax Code)”, brought into force on 1 January 2026. Adoption and commencement are more than five months apart, which matters whenever the version of the Code applicable to a given tax period has to be identified.

A companion law was adopted at the same time — Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 215-VIII of 18 July 2025 “On amendments and additions to certain legislative acts of the Republic of Kazakhstan on taxation”, in force from 1 January 2026. It amended the Entrepreneurial Code, the Civil Procedure Code (from 1 July 2026), the Customs Regulation Code, the Environmental, Social, Budget and Water Codes, and more than twenty laws including the Law on Transfer Pricing. The Code on Administrative Offences is not among the instruments Law No. 215-VIII amends — which is why the notes to Article 278 of that Code still cite articles of the repealed Tax Code.

Code 214-VIII has been amended once, by Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 308-VIII of 11 June 2026, in force from 1 July 2026. Law No. 308-VIII is terminological in character. A blanket footnote to the Code records substitutions throughout the text: “иностранец” replaced by “иностранный гражданин” in every case form, “тенге” by “теңге”, and two reorderings of the words for the capital and the cities of republican significance. Beyond that, the Law made itemised edits to Articles 23, 55, 56, 332, 335, 370, 664, 665, 668, 670, 672 and 677.

None of the procedural articles — 65, 82, 83, 86, 88, 93, 136, 137, 151–173 and 191–200 — carries a closing footnote recording an amendment by Law No. 308-VIII. The list was established from the footnotes within the Code itself on the Adilet portal. The blanket substitutions do operate throughout the text and may formally affect wording in any article; no rule on control or appeals was changed by them.

In Article 665 the heading was amended and paragraph 2 was excluded; the duty rates in paragraph 1, including sub-paragraph 4) on tax notifications, are unchanged. In Article 668 both the heading and the text were amended.

The Administrative Procedure Code — Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 350-VI of 29 June 2020 (APC). It governs the judicial stage in full, and the pre-court stage for everything other than the tax audit notification. In 2025–2026 the relevant provisions were amended by Laws No. 241-VIII of 17 December 2025, No. 306-VIII of 11 June 2026 (in force 1 July 2026) and No. 325-VIII of 24 June 2026.

The Entrepreneurial Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 375-V of 29 October 2015. It applies to tax audits subsidiarily rather than in full. Article 151(3) of the Tax Code says so directly: “The general procedure for conducting a tax audit is determined by this Code, and also by the Entrepreneurial Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan in the part not regulated by this Code.”

The Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan on Administrative Offences No. 235-V of 5 July 2014. Penalties for understatement of tax and for obstructing an audit are in Articles 278 and 288.

Subordinate instruments in force from 1 January 2026

Order	Subject matter	Justice Ministry registration	In force
MoF No. 529 of 24.09.2025	Composition and Regulation of the Appeal Commission	No. 36923 of 24.09.2025	01.01.2026
MoF No. 627 of 24.10.2025	Rules and deadlines for serving the preliminary act and hearing objections	No. 37249 of 29.10.2025	01.01.2026
MoF No. 633 of 28.10.2025	Form of the notice of discrepancies	No. 37245 of 28.10.2025	01.01.2026
MoF No. 659 of 31.10.2025	Rules and grounds for deciding to conduct a tax audit	No. 37316 of 31.10.2025	01.01.2026
MoF No. 586 of 09.10.2025	Repeal of earlier orders, including Order No. 252 on non-confidential risk management criteria	No. 37110 of 14.10.2025	01.01.2026

Order No. 633 is not in its original wording: Order of the Minister of Finance No. 111 of 20 February 2026 (Justice Ministry No. 38021 of 20.02.2026) restated the heading, paragraph 1 and the notification form itself. Order No. 111 was extended to relations arising from 1 January 2026, so it operates retrospectively to the start of the year. The original heading read “identified by the state revenue authorities as a result of desk control”; the current heading does not. Citing Order No. 633 without Order No. 111 reproduces a form that is no longer in force.

Normative resolutions of the Supreme Court

Normative Resolution of the Supreme Court No. 9 of 22 December 2022 “On certain questions of the application of tax legislation by the courts” remains in force. It has been amended once, by Normative Resolution No. 4 of 28 November 2024, and the amendments were made to the Kazakh text only: the footnote to the resolution states expressly that “the Russian text does not change”.

One caveat matters more than any other: Resolution No. 9 has not been renumbered for Code 214-VIII. Its paragraphs cite the repealed Code — paragraph 31 refers to Articles 158 and 159, paragraph 33 to Article 115, paragraph 7 to Article 96. The legal propositions survive, but in 2026 every cross-reference has to be translated into the new numbering by the reader.

Normative Resolution of the Supreme Court No. 2 of 9 April 2026 “On certain questions of the application of procedural legislation in administrative cases” is the newest source on procedure. It repeals nothing and operates alongside Resolution No. 9.

How tax control is built in 2026: four measures instead of one umbrella

Code 214-VIII narrowed “tax control” to tax audits alone. Article 151(2) is unambiguous: “Tax control is exercised by conducting a tax audit, exclusively by the tax authorities.” Everything else that the old term used to cover has been moved into chapters of its own.

What binds them together is the tax risk management system in Article 93. Article 93(2) lists the control measures for minimising tax risk, and there are four: “by conducting desk control, control over the issuance of electronic invoices, tax control and other forms of control.”

Control measure	Chapter	Articles	What it produces
Desk control	Chapter 12	136–137	Notice of discrepancies
Control over electronic invoice issuance	Chapter 13	138–142	Notice confirming a supply actually took place
Tax monitoring	Chapter 14	143–150	Reasoned decision, recommendations, advance rulings
Tax control (audits)	Chapter 15	151–173	Audit act and tax audit notification
Other forms of control	Chapter 16	174–182	Tax survey, excise control, traceability

A note on the table: tax monitoring is shown for completeness — it is not named among the control measures in Article 93(2), because by design it is a mode of interaction rather than a control measure. Article 93(2) also first divides measures into preventive and control measures, and the four listed above are the control ones only.

The distinction is practical: deadlines, consequences and the route of challenge differ across these measures, and a notification issued under Chapter 12 is not appealed the way a notification issued under Chapter 15 is.

Risk criteria became confidential — the single biggest change of 2026

Article 93(3) classifies as confidential not only the information gathered but the risk management procedure itself — the Code’s own word is “procedure”. The wording leaves no room for construction:

“Information obtained in the course of tax risk management, and the procedure for organising tax risk management, are confidential information to which access is restricted by the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan. … Disclosure of that information to other persons, including taxpayers, is prohibited.”

Until 2026 Order of the Minister of Finance No. 252 of 20 February 2018 “On approval of the Rules for applying the risk management system on criteria that do not constitute confidential information” (Justice Ministry No. 16534) was in force. Order of the Minister of Finance No. 586 of 9 October 2025 (Justice Ministry No. 37110 of 14.10.2025) repealed it with effect from 1 January 2026.

The practical consequence: in 2026 a taxpayer no longer has a published list of criteria against which to assess its own likelihood of being audited. Self-assessment against published criteria has disappeared as a planning tool. That is a conclusion drawn from reading Article 93 together with Order No. 586, not a quotation from any official explanation.

Only one layer remains public — the grounds on which a decision to appoint an audit is taken, approved by Order No. 659; the risk-scoring methodology is not part of those grounds and is not published.

What replaced the former degrees of risk

The three-tier grading of desk control into low, medium and high risk does not appear in Code 214-VIII. Neither Article 136 nor Article 137 nor Article 82 uses the phrase “degree of risk”. In its place the Code distinguishes instruments rather than degrees: discrepancies in reported figures produce a notice of discrepancies under Chapter 12, while doubt about whether a transaction happened at all produces a notice confirming a supply actually took place under Chapter 13, with a shorter compliance period. The e-invoicing machinery that feeds the second of those instruments is covered separately in e-invoices and the virtual warehouse in Kazakhstan in 2026.

What desk control is, and how to comply with a notice of discrepancies

Desk control is a data-matching exercise carried out without visiting the taxpayer and without any power to demand documents. Article 136(1) supplies the definition:

“Desk control is a measure carried out by the tax authority on the basis of the study and analysis of tax forms and of other documents and information about the activity of the taxpayer (tax agent).”

Article 136(2) states the purpose, and it is not punitive: “to give the taxpayer (tax agent) the right to discharge tax obligations independently.” Both the prohibition on demanding documents and the classification of the notification as informational-and-preventive rather than mandatory follow from that purpose.

Article 137(1) identifies three data sources for the matching exercise: information held by the tax authorities, including tax forms; information from other authorised state bodies about objects of taxation; and information about the taxpayer’s activity obtained from various sources.

Desk control for a tax period is carried out within the limitation period for that period (Article 137(2), second paragraph) — three or five years depending on the taxpayer category, not one year.

Three different thirty-day periods that are routinely conflated

Article 82 contains three periods of thirty working days, and all three run from different events.

The first is the tax authority’s period for issuing the notice of discrepancies. Article 82(1)(4): the notice “is presented to the taxpayer (tax agent) within thirty working days following the day of completion of desk control.”

The second is the tax authority’s period for issuing the notice confirming that a supply actually took place. Article 82(1)(5): it is presented “within thirty working days following the day on which the supplies of goods, works or services about whose actual occurrence the tax authority has doubts were identified.” Here the clock runs not from the completion of desk control but from the moment the suspect transactions are identified.

The third is the taxpayer’s. Article 82(2): “The period for complying with notifications of an informational and preventive character is thirty working days following the day of service.”

The exception, in the same paragraph: the period for complying with a notice confirming that a supply of goods, works or services actually took place is ten working days following the day of service. It is the shortest period in the whole chapter, and it attaches to the instrument that attacks the reality of a transaction rather than the arithmetic of a return.

Two further notifications under Article 82(2) have no compliance period at all: the notice of excess VAT confirmed for refund under the simplified procedure, and the notice acknowledging receipt of an application on the import of goods and payment of indirect taxes.

A naming trap: the “notice to remedy breaches” still exists, but it is a different document

In 2026 desk control produces a notice of discrepancies (Article 82(1)(4)), not a notice to remedy breaches.

A “notice to remedy breaches of the tax legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan” does exist — but it is Article 83(1)(3), a mandatory notification issued when the authority finds a failure to comply with a requirement of the Code, no later than five working days from the day the breach is identified. These are two documents of different legal character: one informational and preventive, the other mandatory. Material that calls the output of desk control a “notice to remedy breaches” is describing either the repealed Code or a different instrument. Below, the short form “desk control notification” is used; the full name is “notice of discrepancies identified by desk control”.

Two ways to comply

Article 137(3) contains a targeted carve-out: no notice of discrepancies is issued to a participant in horizontal monitoring. It is one of the practical advantages of monitoring that rarely appears in lists of its benefits.

Article 137(8) adds a rule with a sting in the tail: “During a tax audit no notification is presented to the taxpayer (tax agent) for the period under audit, and the results of desk control are to be used in the course of the audit being conducted.” An audit already under way protects against a fresh notification for the audited period — but the discrepancies gathered by desk control pass into the audit file.

Article 137(4) recognises two mutually exclusive responses — agreement with remediation, or disagreement with an explanation.

Where the taxpayer agrees, compliance means remedying the breach by one of four routes: filing tax reporting under the notification for the period concerned; repaying VAT previously refunded from the budget together with interest for each day from the date of the refund to the date of repayment; recording data in the dedicated mobile application and paying the tax and social payments — for taxpayers on the special regime for the self-employed; or taking the steps under Article 716 to move onto the correct tax regime.

Where the taxpayer disagrees, compliance means filing an explanation of the reasons for the discrepancies where those reasons do not involve any breach of the tax legislation.

The Code expressly permits a mixed response. Article 137(4), second paragraph: where the taxpayer agrees in part, compliance means remedying the discrepancies in that part and filing an explanation that there is no discrepancy in the remainder.

Under Article 137(5) the explanation must contain five elements: the identification data of the taxpayer and of the tax authority that issued the notification; the number and date of the notification; the reasons for disagreement; the date and signature; and a list of supporting documents where any exist.

The taxpayer’s central protection is set out in Article 137(5) as a sentence of its own: “Tax authorities are prohibited from demanding documents for the purposes of complying with the notification.” A demand that contracts, acceptance certificates and source documents be attached to the explanation runs against that provision; the list of documents is included “where any exist”, not as a condition of acceptance. The commonest source of discrepancies is VAT data matching, including on imports from the EAEU: form 328.00 and the 16% rate are covered in VAT on imports from the EAEU into Kazakhstan in 2026.

When no explanation may be filed, and what happens if the notification is ignored

Article 137(6) closes off the explanation route for four categories of transaction — and it is a closed list, not an open one. The prohibition applies to deductions for corporate income tax purposes and to input VAT credit on goods, works and services acquired:

1. on the basis of an invoice or other document whose issuance a court act or a prosecutor’s decision terminating a pre-trial investigation on non-rehabilitating grounds has found to have been carried out by a private business without any works actually being performed, services rendered or goods shipped;

2. under transactions declared invalid by a court act that has entered into legal force;

3. under operations carried out without works actually being performed, services rendered or goods shipped, with a taxpayer whose director or founder a court act has found to have had no involvement in the registration or the financial and business activity of that legal entity;

4. under transactions with legal entities or individual entrepreneurs whose registration or re-registration has been declared invalid by a court act that has entered into legal force.

The proviso that rescues a bona fide purchaser sits immediately after that list and is the most frequently overlooked sentence in the chapter: “The first paragraph of this paragraph does not apply to transactions (operations) in respect of which a court has established that the taxpayer (tax agent) actually acquired (received) the goods, works or services.” A court finding that a counterparty was a shell does not, therefore, close the question automatically — it closes it only until the taxpayer obtains a countervailing court finding that its own acquisition was real.

Article 137(7) supplies the procedural mechanism for obtaining that finding. The compliance period is suspended where the taxpayer files a court complaint to confirm the actual acquisition of goods, works or services in the cases set out in sub-paragraphs 3) and 4) of paragraph 6 — that is, in only two of the four categories. A copy of the court act accepting the complaint is filed with the tax authority that issued the notification, and the suspension runs from the date of that court act until it enters into legal force.

The consequences bite on the next working day

Article 137(9) sets out three measures, but the one-working-day deadline attaches to only two of them. Where the notification is not complied with:

1. access to the internet resources or internet platform of a foreign company operating through an internet platform in Kazakhstan is restricted;

2. debit operations on the bank accounts of other taxpayers are suspended within one working day following the day the compliance period expires;

3. the issuance of electronic invoices is suspended within one working day following the day the compliance period expires.

Note the asymmetry: sub-paragraph 1), on restricting access to a foreign company’s internet resources, carries no deadline at all — it is stated without the words “within one working day” that qualify sub-paragraphs 2) and 3).

Article 137(10) completes the design with a power to audit: the tax authority “may conduct a tax audit on the discrepancies identified by desk control in order to verify the reliability of the reasons set out in the explanation, or where the notification is not complied with in time.” Filing an explanation is therefore not a risk-free response: the act of filing itself opens a ground for auditing the reliability of the reasons it gives.

No court order is required to freeze the accounts. Article 86 mentions no court at all: the tax authority issues the instruction itself, it takes effect on the day the banking organisation receives it and is to be executed unconditionally(Article 86(5)(1)), and it is cancelled no later than one working day following the day the cause is removed (Article 86(7)).

The freeze is not absolute. Article 86(4) carves out payment of taxes, budget payments, customs payments, social payments, interest and fines, and the taking of money under enforcement documents for compensation of harm to life and health, recovery of maintenance, wages, pensions and benefits, payment of severance and remuneration, author’s-contract remuneration and the transfer of social payments. The distinction matters: wages are exempted as part of the carve-out for money taken “under enforcement documents”, whereas the payment of taxes, customs and social payments, interest and fines is exempted in its own right. In other words, payments to the budget go through unconditionally, wages go through in the manner provided for enforcement documents, and payments to suppliers do not go through at all.

Two drafting defects in the suspension provisions

The first: Article 88 names the notification differently from the rest of the Code. Article 88(1)(15) refers to non-compliance with a “notice of presumed discrepancies identified by desk control”, whereas Articles 82, 86 and 137 call the same document a “notice of discrepancies identified by desk control”. The word “presumed” appears nowhere else in the Code in the name of this document.

It is worth noting separately that the Code provides no intermediate “decision declaring the notification unfulfilled” for the notice of discrepancies. Such a decision survives only for the notice confirming that a supply actually took place: Article 88(1)(1) speaks of “non-compliance or the taking of a decision by the tax authority declaring unfulfilled” that particular notification. For the notice of discrepancies the suspension follows automatically once the period expires, with no separate act that could be challenged in its own right.

The second, and more consequential: the list of grounds for lifting the suspension of e-invoice issuance omits sub-paragraph 15). Article 88(2) lifts the suspension when the cause is removed in the cases in sub-paragraphs 1)–4) and 12)–14), and when the conditions in sub-paragraphs 7)–12) cease to be met. Sub-paragraph 15) — non-compliance with a desk control notification — appears in neither list. On the face of Article 88, a taxpayer that has complied with the notification has no expressly named ground for restoring its ability to issue e-invoices. The general cross-reference in Article 137(9) to Chapter 5, section 4 fills the gap only by analogy, not literally. This is a structural defect in the wording currently in force, and worth allowing for when planning how quickly trading can resume.

The forms of tax audit, and when a comprehensive audit cannot be ordered

Article 152(1) closes the list of audit forms at four: “A tax audit is conducted in the form of a comprehensive, thematic or counter tax audit, or a time-and-motion survey.” The former category of “periodic audit based on risk assessment” does not appear in Code 214-VIII.

The Code does not regulate audit frequency or the audit “type” — it regulates the form. Article 154(1)(4) requires the audit order to state “the type in the cases provided for by the Entrepreneurial Code, and the form of the tax audit”. The term “unscheduled audit” belongs to the Entrepreneurial Code, not to the Tax Code.

Form	Article	Definition in the Code
Comprehensive	155	An audit of compliance with the tax obligation across all taxes, budget payments and social obligations
Thematic	156	An audit of particular taxes or payments and other requirements of the Code; a closed list of subject matters in paragraph 2
Counter-audit	157	An ancillary audit of persons who transacted with the taxpayer under audit
Time-and-motion survey	158	An audit to establish actual income and actual costs for the period of the survey

Article 155(2) carries a rule that matters when a business is being closed: on liquidation or cessation of activity, only a comprehensive tax audit is conducted. On deregistration of a resident legal entity’s structural subdivision no comprehensive audit is conducted unless the taxpayer asks for one.

The counter-audit under Article 157(3) reaches further than is generally assumed: the same procedure applies to audits carried out on requests from foreign tax and law-enforcement bodies and international organisations under treaties, and to persons who transacted with participants in horizontal monitoring.

The time-and-motion survey has two distinct outputs under Article 158(2): its results are used in the tax risk management system and are taken into account when tax is assessed on a subsequent comprehensive or thematic audit.

The tax burden ratio: a new shield against a comprehensive audit

Article 152(4) is one of the few 2026 provisions that constrains the tax authority by an objective rather than a discretionary test.

“A tax audit is ordered in accordance with this Code having regard to the tax burden ratio. A comprehensive tax audit shall not be ordered for a tax period in which the taxpayer’s tax burden ratio is not less than 90 per cent of the upper tax burden ratio for the relevant type of activity, taking into account the region in which the activity is carried on.”

The shield has three exceptions, named in the third paragraph of the same provision: a comprehensive audit ordered on the taxpayer’s own application, on grounds provided by criminal procedure legislation, and at the demand of the prosecution authorities.

The threshold is expressed against a sectoral and regional upper ratio rather than an absolute figure. Because the risk management methodology is confidential under Article 93(3), a taxpayer can compute its own ratio but cannot officially verify it against the sectoral upper ratio — the provision confers a right whose observance is difficult to police from outside. That limitation follows from reading the two provisions together and is flagged here as a conclusion.

A second shield: the tax audit engagement and horizontal monitoring

Article 152(3) excludes from the audited period any tax period covered by a tax audit engagement performed by an audit firm when a comprehensive audit is ordered (other than on reorganisation or liquidation) and when a thematic audit is ordered on the taxpayer’s own application or complaint. The shield does not apply to taxpayers subject to tax monitoring, to subsoil users, or to producers of certain excisable products and biofuel.

Article 153(4) gives participants in horizontal monitoring the strongest protection in the Code: “No tax audit is conducted for the tax periods during which the taxpayer is in horizontal monitoring” — subject to fourteen exceptions. They include counter-audits, audits on the taxpayer’s own application or complaint, audits on grounds under the Criminal Procedure Code, audits arising from disagreement with a reasoned decision under horizontal monitoring, and a block of goods-related questions: consignment notes, EAEU transport documentation, identification means and excise control marks, licences, cash register compliance, the circulation of excisable goods, settlements with debtors, and transfer pricing.

Transfer pricing is named expressly among the exceptions — horizontal monitoring is no protection against a thematic transfer pricing audit. The three-tier reporting obligations and the rules under which such an audit runs are covered separately in transfer pricing in Kazakhstan in 2026.

On what grounds a tax audit is ordered

Article 153(1) sets out a closed list of four cases in which a tax audit is ordered:

1. the taxpayer files an application or claim provided for by the Code;

2. grounds exist under the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan;

3. the tax authority takes a decision to conduct a tax audit — “the procedure and grounds for the tax authority’s decision to conduct a tax audit are determined by the authorised body”;

4. a subsoil use contract expires, other than where the subsoil use right is converted to a licence regime.

Article 153(2) adds the procedural condition: “A tax audit is conducted on the basis of an audit order.”

Article 153(3) permits a repeat audit of a previously audited period, but on three grounds only: on the taxpayer’s own application, claim or complaint; on grounds under the Criminal Procedure Code; and on a decision of the authorised body. Where the taxpayer has filed a court complaint against a tax audit notification, no repeat audit of the previously audited period on the disputed question is conducted until the court act enters into legal force — a provision that directly removes the risk of retaliatory pressure while litigation is running.

Who actually decides: the three-tier allocation under Order No. 659

Order of the Acting Minister of Finance No. 659 of 31 October 2025 (Justice Ministry No. 37316 of 31.10.2025, in force 01.01.2026) was issued under Article 153(1)(3) and allocates the grounds across three levels of the state revenue authorities. The list below is taken from Chapters 2–4 of Annex 1 to the order.

Level	Grounds for deciding to conduct an audit
State Revenue Committee	Eight grounds: taxpayer applications and information from central state bodies; audit of a previously audited period; non-compliance with a reasoned decision under large-taxpayer monitoring; disagreement with, or non-compliance with, a reasoned decision under horizontal monitoring; circulation of certain excisable goods, aviation fuel, biofuel and fuel oil; transfer pricing; minimisation of tax risk under Article 93(2); the correctness of applying tax treaties
Regional and city departments	Taxpayer applications and information from regional bodies; settlements with taxpayers subject to a pre-trial investigation into invoices issued without performance; settlements with persons whose e-invoice issuance has been suspended under Article 88(1)(1); confirmation that a supply actually took place; confirmation of the breaches stated in a notice of discrepancies; information on the use of money and property received from foreign sources
District and city directorates	Taxpayer applications and information from district bodies; EAEU transport documentation; consignment notes on movement, import and export; stocks of goods on the WTO list; documents on export to EAEU member states; identification means on goods subject to mandatory marking

The Committee’s seventh ground — “minimisation of tax risk under Article 93(2)” — deserves separate notice: it is the order’s only express reference to the risk management system, whose criteria have been confidential since 1 January 2026. The ground is published; the methodology by which it is applied is not.

The practical reading of that allocation: an audit arising from an unremedied desk control notification is ordered at departmental level, not by the district directorate that issued the notification. Treaty application and transfer pricing are reserved to the Committee. Double tax treaty relief and residency certification — a typical Committee-level audit subject — are covered in withholding tax in Kazakhstan in 2026.

The unscheduled audit: a term borrowed from the Entrepreneurial Code

Because the Tax Code does not use the phrase “unscheduled audit”, its grounds sit in Article 144 of the Entrepreneurial Code, which applies to tax audits subsidiarily through Article 151(3) of the Tax Code. An unscheduled audit is one ordered “on specific facts and circumstances”; the last item on the list of grounds covers taxpayer applications as defined by the Tax Code.

What the Entrepreneurial Code does not contribute to tax audits is a separate and practically important question.Article 129 of the Entrepreneurial Code takes tax control out of its own chapter, preserving only an enumerated set of articles. The requirement to register the audit appointment act with the legal statistics body is not in that preserved set. The Tax Code, for its part, requires in Article 154(1)(1) only “the date and registration number of the audit order in the tax authority”, while the legal statistics body is merely notified under Article 163(6), and then only of the suspension or resumption of the audit period. The proposition that a tax audit order must be registered with the Committee on Legal Statistics before the audit begins does not follow from the instruments in force; that is a conclusion drawn from reading them together, and it departs from a widely held practitioner assumption.

How long a tax audit lasts, and when the clock stops

The base audit period is thirty working days from service of the audit order (Article 163(1)). The Code differentiates extensions not by business size but by the presence of structural subdivisions and by tax monitoring status — which departs from a common assumption.

Taxpayer category	Ordered by	Extension	Ceiling
Legal entities with no structural subdivisions, individual entrepreneurs, non-residents with a PE in no more than one location	Tax authority	By the tax authority to 40 working days; by a superior authority to 50 working days	50 working days
Same	Authorised body	To 50 working days	50 working days
Legal entities with structural subdivisions, non-residents with a PE in more than one location	Tax authority	By the tax authority to 65 working days; by a superior authority to 160 working days	160 working days
Same	Authorised body	To 160 working days	160 working days
Taxpayers under tax monitoring	Tax authority	By the tax authority to 75 working days; by a superior authority to 180 working days	180 working days
Same	Authorised body	To 180 working days	180 working days
Time-and-motion survey	—	Extension and suspension do not apply	30 working days

A separate absolute ceiling, easily missed, sits in the second paragraph of Article 163(3) and applies to both of the categories in paragraphs 2 and 3:

“The period of a tax audit referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Article shall not exceed one hundred and eighty calendar days from the day the audit begins, except for tax audits of large business entities or where a request for information is sent to a foreign state and information is received in accordance with international agreements.”

Two different units of measurement coexist here: working days cap the extensions, and one hundred and eighty calendar days cap the total elapsed duration. For a large business entity, and where an international information request has been sent, the calendar ceiling does not apply at all — so for large business the audit has no formal calendar limit.

A time-and-motion survey may be conducted outside normal hours under Article 163(9) — at night, at weekends and on public holidays — if the taxpayer is trading at those times.

Suspension: four grounds and the “counts or does not count” rule

Article 163(6) lists four grounds on which the audit clock may be stopped: service of a demand for information and documents and their production; a request to other tax authorities, state bodies, banking and other organisations operating in Kazakhstan and receipt of the answer; a request to a foreign state under international agreements and receipt of the information; and the taxpayer’s preparation of a written objection to the preliminary audit act and its consideration by the tax authority.

The Code sets no express outer limit on the suspension itself. The control operates differently — through a rule on whether the suspension period counts towards the audit period.

Suspension does NOT count towards the audit period — that is, it does not consume the authority’s time budget — in six categories: taxpayers under tax monitoring; audits on liquidation of a resident legal entity, of a non-resident’s structural subdivision, on cessation of a non-resident’s activity through a permanent establishment or of an individual entrepreneur’s activity; audits on transfer pricing, on confirming excess VAT claimed for refund, on refunding income tax to a non-resident, and on the questions raised in a complaint against a tax audit notification; audits on Criminal Procedure Code grounds; cases where a demand for documents has been issued; and cases where a preliminary audit act has been issued and an objection to it is being considered.

The closing sentence of paragraph 6 completes the design: “The suspension period for other tax audits not listed in this paragraph counts towards the tax audit period.”

The practical consequence: in an ordinary thematic audit falling into none of the six categories, every day spent waiting for an answer to a request consumes the same thirty or fifty working days. In transfer pricing audits, VAT refund audits and liquidation audits, it does not.

Notice of suspension or resumption is served within three working days (Article 163(7)) — first electronically through the web portal, and if the notice has not been opened in the personal cabinet after one working day, in person against signature or by registered post.

Article 162(8) closes the loophole in the other direction: “Where the taxpayer challenges the tax authority’s audit order during the course of a tax audit, suspension of that tax audit is not permitted.”

How many audits actually happen

The State Revenue Committee publishes no official audit statistics in the open section of its website; the figures below are reproduced by business media citing Committee data and are a secondary source.

In the first quarter of 2026, 6,496 tax audits were conducted — 3,118 counter-audits, 1,739 thematic audits on specific questions, 1,184 thematic audits, only 252 comprehensive audits, 143 time-and-motion surveys and 60 control acts. KZT 109.7 billion was assessed and KZT 29.3 billion collected. For 2025 as a whole: 38,392 audits, KZT 292.2 billion assessed and KZT 97.8 billion collected.

The shape of that is telling: comprehensive audits are under four per cent of the total, and collection runs at roughly 27% of the amount assessed in Q1 2026 and roughly 33% for 2025. The bulk of the work is counter-audits — audits of counterparties rather than of the taxpayer itself.

One admission by the Committee, on 24 August 2026, deserves separate notice: “Between 2022 and 2025 the largest number of cases we lost were on desk control acts — about 38%.” In the same statement the Committee expressly rejected the idea of taking tax disputes outside the Administrative Procedure Code: “Leaving the jurisdiction of the APC — the question was never even raised.” Both statements are reported by business media and are a secondary source.

The audit order, access to premises, and demands for documents

The audit order is the sole basis for an audit, and Article 154(1) lists seven mandatory particulars:

1. the date and registration number of the order in the tax authority;

2. the taxpayer’s identification data — where the audit is ordered in respect of that taxpayer;

3. the name of the tax authority issuing the order;

4. the type in the cases provided by the Entrepreneurial Code, and the form of the tax audit;

5. the audit period and the periods under audit, except for a time-and-motion survey;

6. the territory and the questions to be examined — where the audit is not ordered against a specific taxpayer;

7. the surnames, forenames and patronymics of the tax officials and of any specialists engaged.

The order may be issued as an electronic document. Under Article 154(2) a comprehensive audit order does not list the specific taxes. Under Article 154(3) the order is signed by the head of the tax authority or a deputy — for counter-audits and time-and-motion surveys a deputy’s signature suffices. Article 154(4) requires a supplementary order where the period is extended, the officials conducting the audit change, or the audited period changes.

The start date, and refusing to accept the order

The audit begins on the date the order is served in person against signature (Article 162(1)). The order is presented within three working days following the day it is issued (Article 162(2)).

Refusing to accept the order is not a way to cancel the audit. Article 162(4) requires the official, on a refusal, to make a video recording of the refusal, endorse the copy of the order, and draw up a refusal act with attesting witnesses. Article 162(5) states the consequence directly: refusal “is not a ground for cancelling the tax audit” but “means denial of access by tax officials to the tax audit”. Under Article 162(6) the audit start date is then the date of the refusal act— the audit has legally begun, and the taxpayer stands in the position of having denied access.

Article 162(7) prohibits terminating an audit already begun on the taxpayer’s tax application or on the discontinuance of criminal proceedings.

Three cases in which access may lawfully be refused

Article 168(2) sets out an exhaustive list of three grounds, and the Code knows no other lawful reason to turn inspectors away:

1. the audit order and the officials’ service identification or identity cards have not been produced;

2. the tax officials or the persons engaged in the audit are not named in the order;

3. the officials do not hold the special clearance required by law for access to the taxpayer’s territory or premises.

The proviso in the second paragraph of Article 162(5) links the two provisions: the rule that refusal means denial of access does not apply where the taxpayer has the right to refuse access under Article 168. A lawful refusal on one of the three grounds is therefore not a denial of access.

Access is given to territory and premises used to derive income — other than residential premises (Article 168(1)).On an unjustified refusal an act of denial is drawn up, signed by the officials, the specialists, the taxpayer and attesting witnesses under Article 182; a refusal to sign is recorded in the act.

The sanction for unlawfully obstructing access is Article 288(3) of the Administrative Offences Code: a fine of forty-five monthly calculation indices, that is KZT 194,625 at the 2026 MCI of KZT 4,325. On a repeat offence within a year the fine is sixty MCI, KZT 259,500 (Article 288(4)). Failure to comply with the lawful demands of the state revenue authorities under Article 288(1) attracts only a warning, and the fine of fifteen MCI (KZT 64,875) arises only on repetition (Article 288(2)). Article 288 does not vary the sanction by size of business.

Demands for documents, and the small-business protection

Article 164(1) contains a rule tied expressly to business size:

“A demand for documents may be served no more than twice during an audit, except in audits of taxpayers classified as medium and large business entities.”

The two-demand cap therefore protects micro and small business only; for medium and large business the number of demands is unlimited.

Article 164(2) allows ten working days to comply from the day after service, extendable by the tax authority to thirty working days on application, having regard to the volume of documents requested.

The preliminary act and the written objection: a dispute before the notification exists

The preliminary tax audit act is the institution that lets a taxpayer challenge the inspectors’ conclusions before there is any notification to appeal. Article 169(1) defines it as “a document on the preliminary results of a tax audit, drawn up by the inspector … and served on the taxpayer (tax agent) before the tax audit act is drawn up”, and confers in the same paragraph the right to file a written objection.

Article 169(3) contains the single exception: no preliminary act is drawn up or served in an audit ordered on the instruction of the authorised body while it is considering a taxpayer’s complaint against a tax audit notification.

The Code delegates the procedure and deadlines to the authorised body (Article 169(2)). They are set by Order of the Minister of Finance No. 627 of 24 October 2025 (Justice Ministry No. 37249 of 29.10.2025, in force 01.01.2026).

What the Rules under Order No. 627 provide

Paragraph 2 of the Rules defines the scope: they apply to audits that lead to an assessment of taxes, other obligatory payments and social payments, or to a reduction of losses, with two carve-outs — thematic audits confirming excess VAT under Article 156(2)(20), and audits on the refund of income tax to a non-resident under a tax treaty.

Paragraph 5 of the Rules ties the preliminary act to suspension: a notice suspending the audit period under Article 163(6) is served at the same time. Time spent preparing the objection therefore does not consume the audit period.

Paragraph 7 of the Rules gives the taxpayer 15 working days from the day after service of the preliminary act to file a written objection, in person or electronically. Paragraph 8 requires six particulars, including “the circumstances on which the person filing the written objection bases its claims, and the evidence supporting those circumstances”.

Paragraph 10 of the Rules lists four cases in which the audit is completed within one working day: no objection is filed once the fifteen-day period expires; written agreement with the preliminary act is filed; the objection is withdrawn; or the day after a tax survey act is drawn up where service was impossible.

Escalation across three levels — and an asymmetry worth knowing

The objection is considered by the unit conducting the audit within 5 working days of its registration (paragraphs 11 and 17 of the Rules).

Where that unit disagrees with the taxpayer’s case, it must escalate. Paragraph 12 of the Rules divides the addressees:

• to the Department — for all taxpayers other than those listed below;

• to the State Revenue Committee — for taxpayers subject to tax monitoring under Article 143(2) and those that have signed a horizontal monitoring agreement; those subject to large-taxpayer monitoring under Article 144(3); and those that have concluded investment or special investment contracts.

The request must enclose the preliminary act, the taxpayer’s objection, the auditing unit’s written position setting out its grounds of disagreement, the calculations and the documents. The request is considered within 10 working days by both the Department (paragraph 13) and the Committee (paragraph 15), extendable while an answer to an external request is awaited, but by no more than 30 calendar days.

The asymmetry between the two paragraphs is not editorial carelessness but a difference in legal weight. Paragraph 13: the conclusions in the Department’s position “are subject to mandatory application” when the audit is completed. Paragraph 15: the conclusions in the Committee’s position “are subject to application” — without the word “mandatory”. The superior Committee’s position is expressed more weakly than that of the middle tier.

The practical conclusion: the preliminary act stage is the cheapest and fastest place to win a dispute. There is no state duty, no limitation period on filing, no publicity, and the substantive decision may be taken at Committee level — by the very body that would later hear a complaint. Missing the fifteen-day deadline does not forfeit the right to appeal the notification later, but it does forfeit the chance to settle the question before the notification is issued and before interest starts running on it.

The audit act and the tax audit notification

Article 170(3) fixes the moment an audit ends in a single sentence: “The completion of the tax audit period is the day the tax audit act is served on the audited taxpayer (tax agent).”

Article 170(1) lists twelve mandatory elements of the act. Four of them matter in practice: information on the previous audit and on the remediation of earlier findings — for comprehensive and thematic audits; general information on the documents produced; a detailed description of the breaches found, citing the relevant provisions of the legislation; and the results. Copies of documents, the inspector’s calculations and other materials are annexed to the act, other than information constituting tax secrecy.

The act is drawn in at least two copies and is either signed by the officials on personal service or certified by their electronic digital signature on electronic service (Article 170(2)).

Where personal service is impossible because the taxpayer is absent from its registered location, a tax survey is conducted with attesting witnesses, and the date of service is the date of the tax survey act (Article 170(4)). On a refusal to accept the act, a refusal act is drawn up and its date is the date of service (Article 170(5)).

Article 170(6) contains a concession for companies in liquidation: obligations arising between receipt of the liquidation reporting and completion of the liquidation audit are set out in an annex to the act without interest and without penalties.

The notification: five working days and one number

A tax audit notification is issued only where breaches of four kinds are found (Article 171(1)): those leading to an assessment of taxes and budget payments; to a reduction of losses; to non-confirmation of excess VAT claimed for refund; and to non-confirmation of corporate or individual income tax withheld at source from non-resident income.

Article 171(2) records a technical detail with procedural consequences: “Registration of the tax audit notification and of the tax audit act is carried out by the tax authority under a single number.”

The notification is issued no later than five working days from service of the act (Article 83(1)(1)).

The mandatory content under Article 171(3) includes the amounts of assessed taxes, payments, social payments and interest, of reduced losses, of unconfirmed excess VAT and of unconfirmed income tax withheld at source, the payment details, and — as a sub-paragraph of its own — “the deadlines and place of appeal”.

Service under Article 171(4) is a two-step process: first electronically through the web portal, where the notification is treated as served the moment it is opened in the personal cabinet; and only if it has not been opened after three working days, in person against signature or by registered post with acknowledgement. Where the post returns the letter, the date of service is the date of the tax survey (Article 171(5)).

The compliance period is thirty working days following the day of service (Article 83(2)). By comparison, Article 83 sets shorter periods for other mandatory notifications: ten working days for a notice to settle tax arrears and twenty for notices confirming receivables and confirming the taxpayer’s location.

Instalments on agreement, and the bar on repeat administrative proceedings

Article 171(6) allows a taxpayer that agrees with the assessment to apply, with a payment schedule, for sixty working days to pay by instalments — in equal parts every fifteen working days, with interest accruing for each day of the deferral. No instalment plan is available for assessed excise or for taxes withheld at source.

Article 171(8) is a new and underrated taxpayer protection. Where an audit of the same tax period on the same question uncovers a breach that was not found in any of the previous tax audits, administrative proceedings cannot be commenced and, if commenced, must be terminated.

The protection has five exceptions — one in the second paragraph of Article 171(8) and four numbered in the third. The second paragraph excludes thematic audits arising from a non-resident’s request for reconsideration of a treaty-based income tax refund application. The third adds breaches identified: 1) in the taxpayer’s own reduction of tax payable by filing additional reporting for a previously audited period; 2) from the answer to a request made during a previous audit of the same period, where the answer arrived after that audit closed; 3) from consideration of documents not produced on the tax authority’s request during a previous audit; and 4) in respect of the issuance of an invoice by a private business without works actually being performed, services rendered or goods shipped, after a court act has entered into legal force, where the tax authority first learned of that act after any previous audit closed.

The fourth exception matters most in practice: it is what takes the fictitious-invoice scenario discussed above under Article 137(6) outside the protection.

The economic weight of the provision is set by the sanction it relieves. Under Article 278(1) of the Administrative Offences Code, understatement of tax attracts a fine of 10 MCI for individuals; 20% of the assessed tax for small business entities and non-profit organisations, private notaries, private bailiffs and advocates; 50% for medium business entities; and 80% for large business entities. On an assessment of KZT 100 million against a large business that is KZT 80 million of penalty on top of the tax and the interest. The payroll computations that most often generate such assessments are covered separately in employer payroll taxes and contributions in Kazakhstan in 2026.

A separate drafting defect: note 4 to Article 278 of the Administrative Offences Code still cites Article 742(3) and Article 297 of the repealed Tax Code. In that respect the Administrative Offences Code has not been aligned with Code 214-VIII.

The limitation period: three years or five

Article 65(2) split the limitation period in two: five years for four categories of taxpayer and three years for everyone else.

Five years applies to taxpayers:

• classified by the Entrepreneurial Code as large business entities;

• operating under a subsoil use contract;

• Kazakhstan residents subject to the requirements of Chapter 33 of the Code (controlled foreign companies);

• VAT payers, as regards VAT on imported goods paid by the offset method.

Three years applies to every taxpayer not named in Article 65(2)(1).

Large business status is determined by the Entrepreneurial Code, not by tax monitoring status — these are two different tests, and a company can be a large business entity without being under monitoring.

Article 65(1) defines what the period constrains, and the list runs both ways: the tax authority’s right to compute, assess or revise amounts; the taxpayer’s duty to file reporting; its right to amend that reporting; and its right to claim offset and refund of taxes, payments and interest. The same clock runs against the taxpayer and in its favour.

Article 65(3): time starts running after the end of the relevant tax period, unless paragraphs 4 to 7 provide otherwise.

Extension: eight grounds

Article 65(8) extends the limitation period in eight cases. Three arise more often than the rest:

• by one calendar year — where additional tax reporting, or reporting filed under a notification, is submitted for a period whose limitation expires in less than one calendar year;

• by three calendar years as regards corporate income tax — where additional reporting is filed on the carry-forward of losses for a period whose limitation expires in less than one calendar year;

• until compliance with a notice of discrepancies identified by desk control, or a notice confirming that a supply actually took place, sent and served before the limitation period expired — as regards the breaches identified.

The third of those grounds means that a desk control notification served in the closing days of the period extends limitation on the identified breaches indefinitely — until it is complied with.

The remaining five grounds: until execution of a decision on a non-resident’s application for a treaty-based income tax refund; until execution of a decision under the mutual agreement procedure in Article 232; until compliance with a notice to settle tax arrears; for five years after the conclusion of arbitration proceedings brought by an investor in international arbitration; and for three calendar years in respect of debt collection activity.

Suspension, and the thirty-calendar-day rule

Article 65(9) suspends the limitation period in two cases: from the day the tax audit begins until the day the tax audit notification is complied with; and from the day a complaint against officials’ acts is filed until a superior authority decides it or a court act enters into legal force.

The safeguard against an audit launched at the eleventh hour sits in the same provision:

“Where a tax audit is completed after the expiry of the limitation period for a tax period, and less than thirty calendar days remained before that expiry on the date the audit began, the suspension of the limitation period does not apply to that tax period.”

For the other tax periods covered by the same audit, the period is suspended from the tax period following the one in which the audit began.

Read practically: an audit ordered less than thirty calendar days before limitation expires for a particular period does not freeze that period — it expires on schedule even while the audit continues. Other periods within the same audit are treated differently.

Finally, Article 65(5) separately extends the tax authority’s rights over subsoil users: for the term of the contract and five years after it ends, in respect of excess profits tax, Kazakhstan’s production-sharing entitlement and taxes computed using an internal rate of return or an R-factor. The choice of tax regime — including the special tax regimes, which change both the volume of reporting and the typical set of desk control discrepancies — is covered in Kazakhstan’s special tax regimes in 2026.

Appealing to the Ministry of Finance: what may be appealed, and by when

Chapter 18 of Code 214-VIII is headed “Procedure for appealing a tax audit notification and the acts (omissions) of officials of the tax authorities” and comprises Articles 191–200. Article 191 contains the chapter’s general provisions; the remaining nine articles are divided into two sections.

Section 1 (Articles 192–198) governs the appeal of a single document — the tax audit notification. Article 191(2) leaves no room for a wider reading: an appeal to the authorised body proceeds under Section 1, and the filing and consideration of the complaint proceed under Articles 192–198.

Section 2 (Articles 199–200) governs appeals against officials’ acts and omissions, and Article 200 consists of one sentence: “Acts (omissions) of officials of the tax authorities are appealed in the manner provided by the Administrative Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan.”

From this follows the central structural asymmetry of the regime: the administrative route to the Ministry of Finance is open only for the tax audit notification. The desk control notice of discrepancies, the notice to remedy breaches, the notice to settle tax arrears and the other notifications under Articles 82 and 83 fall outside Chapter 18 and are challenged as burdening administrative acts under the Administrative Procedure Code.

For those notifications the Code offers neither the “or to the court” alternative found in Article 191(3) and Article 199(1) — so their pre-court position is governed by the general rule in Article 91(5) of the Administrative Procedure Code, meaning a complaint to the superior administrative body precedes any claim. That is a conclusion drawn from reading the provisions together, not an express statement in the Code; it is developed in the section on the courts and the Administrative Procedure Code below.

The filing deadline and the single ground for restoring it

Article 192(1): a complaint is filed with the authorised body within thirty working days following the day the tax audit notification is served. A copy goes to the tax authorities that conducted the audit and that considered the objections to the preliminary act.

The date of filing is: on personal filing, the date of registration by the authorised body; by post, the date of the postal receipt mark; electronically, the date of dispatch through the web portal.

A missed deadline can be restored, but on one ground only. Article 192(3) recognises as a valid reason only temporary incapacity for work of the individual audited, or of the taxpayer’s chief executive or chief accountant — and only where the organisational structure provides for no one to stand in for them during an absence. The application must enclose a document proving the period of incapacity and a document establishing the organisational structure. Article 192(4) adds a hard condition: the complaint and the application must be filed no later than ten working days from the end of the period of incapacity.

A complaint may be withdrawn before a decision, except between the date a thematic audit is ordered in the course of the appeal and its completion (Article 192(5)). Withdrawal does not forfeit the right to file again within the same thirty working days.

Four grounds for refusing to consider a complaint

Article 194(1) lists four cases in which the authorised body refuses to consider a complaint: filing out of time; non-compliance with the requirements of Article 193; filing by a person who is not the taxpayer’s representative; and the taxpayer’s filing of a court claim on the questions raised in the complaint.

The fourth ground is direct textual proof that the judicial route is open independently of the administrative one: it would be impossible to refuse a complaint because of a court filing if a court filing were impermissible without a complaint.

The authorised body notifies the refusal within ten working days (Article 194(2)). On grounds 2) and 3) the refusal does not forfeit the right to re-file within the original thirty-day period once the defects are cured (Article 194(3)).

Time to decide, suspension and extension

Article 195(1): a reasoned decision is issued within no more than forty-five working days for taxpayers under tax monitoring and no more than thirty working days for everyone else, running from registration of the complaint. Periods of suspension and extension are excluded.

Article 195(3) confines the subject matter: “A complaint is considered within the limits of the questions appealed by the taxpayer (tax agent).”

Article 195(4) contains a provision worth remembering when drafting a complaint: where the taxpayer produces documents that were not produced during the audit, the authorised body may verify their reliability through a thematic or repeat thematic audit. New evidence is therefore not free — it can trigger an audit and suspend the appeal.

Suspension under Article 196(1) has two grounds: the conduct of a thematic or repeat thematic audit — from the date it is ordered until fifteen working days after the authorised body receives the audit act; and a request to state bodies, foreign authorities or other organisations — until the answer arrives.

Extension under Article 196(3) has two grounds: fifteen working days for each supplement to the complaint (on every subsequent filing), and up to ninety working days where the appealed question requires further study.

Read practically: three supplements to a complaint add forty-five working days to the decision period — and the same number of days of accruing interest.

The Appeal Commission: the body that in practice decides the dispute

Article 197(1) requires the authorised body to establish an appeal commission and leaves its composition and regulation to that same body: “The composition of, and the regulation on, the appeal commission are determined by the authorised body.”

The commission’s legal status is advisory, not determinative. The same provision: “On concluding its consideration of the complaint the authorised body issues a reasoned decision taking account of the appeal commission’s decision.” What binds the tax authorities is the authorised body’s decision, not the commission’s (Article 197(6)).

The instrument in force is Order of the Minister of Finance No. 529 of 24 September 2025 “On approval of the composition and Regulation of the appeal commission for considering complaints against notifications of audit results” (Justice Ministry No. 36923 of 24.09.2025, in force 01.01.2026). It was issued simultaneously under Article 480(1) of the Customs Regulation Code and Article 197(1) of the Tax Code — one commission hears both tax and customs complaints — and repealed a series of orders from 2018 to 2021.

Composition, quorum and voting

Order No. 529 contradicts itself on the commission’s size, and the point is worth knowing. Annex 1 (“Composition”) speaks of a commission of “not fewer than nine persons”, comprising a chairman and “members of the appeal commission numbering not fewer than eight”. Paragraph 5 of the Regulation approved by Annex 2 to the same order puts it differently and without any margin: “The Commission comprises the Chairman of the Commission and members of the Commission numbering eight.” Annex 1 states a minimum; Annex 2 states an exact number.

Its members are drawn from the staff of the Ministry of Finance and its agencies and the Ministry of National Economy, and from representatives of the Atameken National Chamber of Entrepreneurs and of sectoral associations (both by agreement).

The commission’s working body is the Appeals Department of the Ministry of Finance.

Operating parameter	Position under the Regulation
Frequency of sittings	Weekly, every Thursday; where that falls on a holiday, the next working day
Format	In person; the chairman may convene a sitting online by videoconference
Quorum	At least half the voting members, including the chairman
Mandatory attendance	A representative of the authorised body’s agency; absence defers the complaint to the next sitting
Voting	Open, by simple majority of those present, by completing a voting sheet
Atameken’s vote	Counted as one vote for the chamber as a whole
Tied vote	The decision for which the chairman voted prevails
Time to circulate materials to members	3 working days from receipt of the complaint or supplement
Time for members’ positions	15 working days for large taxpayers under monitoring; 10 for others; 7 on a supplement; 5 on the act of an audit ordered within the appeal
Agenda	Circulated to members no later than 3 working days before the sitting

Paragraph 21 of the Regulation introduces a conflict of interest rule: a member does not consider a complaint, express a position or vote where the applicant is a close relative, spouse or in-law, or where there is a direct or indirect interest. A member must notify the chairman of a conflict in writing as soon as it comes to light.

Paragraph 31 forecloses a second attempt: where a repeat complaint is filed against a notification that has already been appealed and decided, the authorised body leaves it without consideration and does not put it to the commission.

A thematic audit during the appeal

Article 198 empowers the authorised body to instruct that a thematic audit be conducted — and builds in a safeguard of impartiality. Article 198(2): the audit may not be assigned to the tax authority that conducted the audit under appeal, unless that audit was conducted by the authorised tax body itself.

Article 198(3): the audit must begin no later than ten working days from receipt of the instruction. Article 198(4) permits a repeat thematic audit where the data are insufficiently clear or complete.

Article 198(5) leaves the last word with the authorised body: the decision is taken having regard to the audit results, but “where the authorised body disagrees with the results of such audits it may decline to take them into account in deciding the complaint, provided that the disagreement is reasoned”.

Two possible outcomes, and what follows

Article 197(2) knows only two outcomes: leave the notification unchanged and dismiss the complaint, or cancel the notification in whole or in part. The authorised body cannot vary the amount directly.

Where the notification is cancelled in part, the tax authority that conducted the audit issues a notification of the outcome of the complaint within the period in Article 83(1)(2) — no later than five working days from the decision (Article 197(5)).

A separate provision in Article 197(3) expressly disapplies a general rule of the Administrative Procedure Code: “no preliminary decision on the complaint is required”. The same carve-out appears in Article 198(1) — no preliminary decision is required on the instruction to conduct a thematic audit or on the resulting audit act either. These are targeted derogations from the Administrative Procedure Code, made expressly by the Tax Code.

Court, the Administrative Procedure Code, and whether the pre-court stage is mandatory

The general rule of the Administrative Procedure Code does contemplate a pre-court appeal, but with a proviso that decides the question in tax cases. Article 91(5) of the APC:

“Unless otherwise provided by law, recourse to the court is permitted after appeal in the pre-court procedure. Where the law provides for the possibility of applying to the court without appealing to a superior body, the administrative body or official whose administrative act or administrative action (omission) is challenged shall, together with its response, file with the court the reasoned position of the head of the superior administrative body or official.”

For the tax audit notification the law does provide otherwise, and this is visible in three independent places in Code 214-VIII.

First, Article 191(3) speaks of filing a complaint “with the authorised body or the court”, in the disjunctive, and sets out the consequences of each route separately.

Second, Article 194(1)(4) requires the authorised body to refuse to consider a complaint where a court claim has been filed on the same questions. That provision cannot coexist with a mandatory pre-court stage.

Third, paragraph 33 of Normative Resolution of the Supreme Court No. 9 of 22 December 2022 describes both routes expressly: the time for filing a claim runs, “where the tax audit notification is challenged directly in court, from the day it is served …, and where there has been a prior appeal to the authorised body, from the day the taxpayer … learned of that body’s decision … or from the day the period set by the Tax Code for considering the complaint expired, if no decision was taken.”

Conclusion: for the tax audit notification, the pre-court appeal is a right, not a precondition of suit.

For officials’ acts and omissions the conclusion is the same, and the textual basis is even plainer. Article 199(1) uses the same disjunctive: “A taxpayer and a tax agent have the right to appeal the acts (omissions) of officials of the tax authorities to a superior tax authority or to the court.” Article 200’s reference to the Administrative Procedure Code goes to the procedure, not to whether the stage is compulsory.

For the remaining notifications, however — the notice of discrepancies, the notice to remedy breaches, the notice to settle tax arrears — the Tax Code offers no “or to the court” alternative at all. Neither Chapter 18 nor Article 199 applies to them, so the general rule in Article 91(5) of the Administrative Procedure Code engages: recourse to the court is permitted after appeal in the pre-court procedure. That is a conclusion drawn from reading the provisions together, not an express statement in the Code, and it is the opposite of the common assumption that a desk control notification goes “straight to court”. In practice a complaint must first be filed with the superior tax authority under the Administrative Procedure Code, and only then a claim.

Paragraph 18 of Normative Resolution of the Supreme Court No. 2 of 9 April 2026 shows how this works in the courtroom: where the law permits recourse to court without a pre-court stage, the respondent must file the reasoned position of the head of the superior body alongside its response, and the claimant is entitled to see it. Failure to file it in time may attract procedural coercion but does not prevent the case from being heard on the merits.

Resolution No. 2 also states the other side of the question, worth remembering when planning the pre-court stage.Paragraph 14: “Observance of the pre-court dispute settlement procedure, unless otherwise provided by law, is an indispensable condition of filing a claim in court”, and non-observance is a ground for returning the claim under Article 138(2)(1) of the Administrative Procedure Code, provided the opportunity to use that procedure has not been lost. Paragraph 15 obliges the court, before the hearing begins, to require the claimant to show that the pre-court procedure was observed, except where the law permits direct recourse to the court. Paragraph 17 confirms that the absence of a statutory pre-court procedure does not deprive a person of the right to complain voluntarily.

Paragraph 16 is a practical deadline trap: where the body considering a complaint has not decided it within the period set by the Administrative Procedure Code (twenty working days), the complaint is deemed refused from the day that period expires, and the one-month period for a court claim runs from the expiry of the review period, not from receipt of an answer that may never come.

Which claim, which court, and by when

Administrative cases are heard by specialised district and equivalent administrative courts (Article 102(1) APC).On the claimant’s application a case may be heard by the court at the claimant’s place of residence — other than cases falling to the courts in the capital, the cities of republican significance and the regional centres.

The form of claim is a challenge claim (Article 132 APC): where a burdening administrative act infringes the claimant’s rights, the claimant may seek its annulment in whole or in part. Paragraph 31 of Resolution No. 9 defines the subject matter: only the notification is challengeable, and the court reviews the lawfulness of the disputed assessment having regard to the conclusions set out in the audit act. The audit act itself may be challenged separately where the taxpayer disputes conclusions that produced no assessment but affect its rights and obligations, including in future periods — and that challenge follows the rules for challenging officials’ acts.

The deadline is one month (Article 136 APC). Paragraph 1: challenge claims are filed within one month of service of the decision of the body considering the complaint; where the law prescribes no pre-court procedure or there is no such body, within one month of service of the administrative act. Paragraph 6 adds: a person who has filed a complaint may apply to the court within one month of service of the decision on the complaint, or once the period for considering it has expired without a decision.

Time missed for good reason may be extended by the court under the rules of the Civil Procedure Code; the reasons are examined at the preliminary hearing (Article 136(7) APC). A deadline missed without good reason, or one that cannot be restored, is a ground for returning the claim (Article 136(8)).

Three procedural advantages the Administrative Procedure Code gives the taxpayer

First, the burden of proof. Article 129(2)(1) APC: in a challenge claim the burden lies on the respondent that adopted the burdening administrative act. Paragraph 34 of Resolution No. 9 repeats the point for tax: “The burden of proving the circumstances that formed the basis of the contested act of the tax authority lies on the tax authority.”

Second, the bar on new grounds. Article 129(3) APC: “The respondent may rely only on the reasoning mentioned in the administrative act.” Paragraph 31 of Resolution No. 9 applies this literally: the tax authority may rely only on the conclusions and reasoning recorded in the tax audit act. A ground that first appears in the response cannot be put to the court.

Third, the active role of the court. Article 16 APC obliges the court not to confine itself to the parties’ arguments and to gather additional materials and evidence on its own initiative. Paragraph 13 of Resolution No. 2 of 9 April 2026 spells this out: the court assists the claimant in curing formal defects in the claim, in formulating the relief sought, and in setting out the factual circumstances.

Duty, appeal and cassation

The state duty is set by Article 665(1)(4) of the Tax Code and is calculated on the disputed amount, interest included:

Category of claimant	Rate	Cap
Individual entrepreneurs and peasant or farming enterprises	0.1% of the disputed amount of taxes, customs payments and budget payments (including interest)	500 MCI = KZT 2,162,500
Legal entities	1% of the disputed amount (including interest)	20,000 MCI = KZT 86,500,000
Cassation appeal	50% of the applicable rate (Article 665(3))	—

The heading of Article 665 was amended by Law No. 308-VIII with effect from 1 July 2026; the rates themselves are unchanged.

An appeal is filed within two months of the decision being issued in final form (Article 168(2) APC); a private complaint against a ruling, within ten working days (Article 168(3)). Cassation lies within six months of the appellate judicial act entering into legal force (Article 169(2) APC).

A separate route: challenging the order itself

Chapter 15-1 of the Administrative Procedure Code (Articles 167-1 to 167-3) confers the right to challenge the lawfulness of a subordinate normative legal act — the Minister of Finance’s order itself, not merely its application.The claim is filed within three months of the day the claimant learned of the infringement (Article 136(3-1) APC); filing does not suspend the act (Article 167-1(4)); the burden of proof lies on the body that adopted it (Article 129(2)(5) APC); the case is heard within one month; and the judgment binds an indeterminate class of persons to whom the challenged act applied (Article 167-3(2)).

Three routes to a dispute: a comparison

The route is dictated not by the taxpayer’s preference but by the document: the tax audit notification has two routes, every other notification has one.

Parameter	Objection to the preliminary act	Complaint to the Ministry of Finance	Claim in the specialised administrative court
What is challenged	The preliminary tax audit act	The tax audit notification	Any burdening administrative act, including a desk control notification
Legal basis	Art. 169 Tax Code, MoF Order No. 627	Arts. 191–198 Tax Code, MoF Order No. 529	APC, art. 191(1) Tax Code
Filing deadline	15 working days from the day after service	30 working daysfrom the day after service	1 month
Decision period	5 working days + escalation of up to 10 working days and up to 30 calendar days for external requests	30 working days; 45 under tax monitoring; extension to 90	Set by the court; 1 month for a challenge to a normative act
State duty	None	None	0.1% / 1% of the disputed amount including interest
Suspension of enforcement	The audit is suspended; no notification yet exists	Until the complaint is decided	From the day the case is accepted for hearing until the judgment enters into legal force
Burden of proof	On the taxpayer (to make out the objection)	Not allocated by the Code	On the tax authority (art. 129 APC)
Is the stage mandatory	No	No — on the express wording of art. 194(1)(4)	Depends on the document: for the audit notification and for officials’ acts a direct claim is available; for other notifications, only after a pre-court complaint under art. 91(5) APC
Who decides	The Directorate, the Department or the Committee	The authorised body, taking account of the Appeal Commission’s decision	The court

There is a gap in the suspension of enforcement that is worth planning around. Under Article 191(3)(1) suspension on the administrative route lasts until the complaint is decided, while under Article 191(3)(2) suspension on the judicial route begins only on the day the court accepts the administrative case for hearing. Between the decision on the complaint and acceptance of the claim, enforcement of the notification is not suspended.

What suspension does not stop

Enforcement of the notification is suspended; the accrual of interest is not. Article 5(2) defines interest as amounts “calculated at a multiple of the National Bank base rate … in force on each day of delay”, the multiple being 1.25 for ordinary taxpayers and 0.65 for participants in horizontal monitoring.

Article 85(3) sets a closed list of nine cases in which interest is not charged, and the appeal period is not among them. The list covers the compulsory liquidation of a second-tier bank, excess profits tax beyond five periods, recalculation of individuals’ property and transport taxes, a compulsory share issue, a declaration that a person is missing, personal bankruptcy and solvency restoration, debt restructuring, a declared state of emergency, and a breach by a horizontal monitoring participant acting on an advance ruling it had received.

The disputed amounts are nonetheless placed beyond enforced collection at the level of the definitions. Article 5(1) excludes from arrears the amounts stated in a tax audit notification during the appeal, in the appealed part; Article 5(3) excludes from tax debt the interest stated in the notification and the fines imposed by an administrative penalty order during the appeal, in the appealed part. Collection is suspended — the meter is not.

At the base rate of 16.75% in force from 27 July 2026, interest for an ordinary taxpayer runs at 20.9375% per annum, or roughly 0.057% a day. A two-hundred-day dispute adds about 11.5% to the amount in issue.

Separately: challenging officials’ acts on securing the tax obligation and on enforced collection does not suspend those measures at all (Article 199(2)).

A step-by-step algorithm: from notice of discrepancies to cassation

Step 1. Identify which document you have received, by reference to Article 82 or Article 83. A notice of discrepancies is Article 82, informational and preventive, thirty working days. A notice confirming a supply actually took place is Article 82, ten working days. A tax audit notification is Article 83, thirty working days, and the Chapter 18 route.

Step 2. Fix the date of service. On electronic despatch the notification is treated as served from the moment it is opened in the personal cabinet, not from despatch. Opening it starts the clock.

Step 3. On a notice of discrepancies, check whether the transaction falls within Article 137(6). If it falls within sub-paragraphs 3) or 4), assess the prospects of a court finding of actual acquisition; filing such a complaint suspends the compliance period.

Step 4. Choose the form of response. Agreement means additional reporting under the notification. Disagreement means an explanation under Article 137(5). Partial agreement means both, which the Code expressly permits.

Step 5. Do not attach documents “just in case”. Demanding documents for compliance with the notification is prohibited; the list is given “where any exist”.

Step 6. On receiving an audit order, check the seven particulars in Article 154(1) and the named inspectors. Access may be refused only on the three grounds in Article 168(2); any other refusal is an offence under Article 288(3) of the Administrative Offences Code.

Step 7. Track the audit period and the suspension notices. In an ordinary thematic audit the suspension period counts towards the audit period; check whether it has been exhausted.

Step 8. When the preliminary act arrives, treat that stage seriously. Fifteen working days, no duty, and mandatory escalation to the Department or the Committee if the inspectors disagree. It is the cheapest exit from the dispute.

Step 9. Check the tax audit notification against Article 171(3) — it must state the amounts in each category, the payment details and the deadlines and place of appeal.

Step 10. Decide on instalments. Agreeing the amount opens sixty working days in equal instalments every fifteen working days — excluding excise and taxes withheld at source.

Step 11. Choose the route: a complaint to the Ministry of Finance, or straight to court. The administrative route is free and suspends enforcement until decision; the judicial route costs a duty but shifts the burden of proof to the tax authority and confines it to the grounds in the audit act.

Step 12. When filing a complaint, weigh the cost of producing new documents. Documents not produced during the audit entitle the authorised body to order a thematic audit and suspend consideration.

Step 13. Count the supplements to the complaint. Each adds fifteen working days.

Step 14. Before going to court, compute the duty on the amount including interest and check whether it hits the cap. For a legal entity that is 1% capped at 20,000 MCI.

Step 15. In court, use Article 129 of the Administrative Procedure Code. Insist that the tax authority prove its grounds and stay within the four corners of the audit act.

Step 16. Keep the later deadlines in view: two months to appeal from the decision in final form, six months for cassation from the day the appellate act entered into legal force.

Typical mistakes and what they cost

Mistake 1. Assuming a desk control notification is appealed to the Ministry of Finance. Chapter 18 of the Code covers only the tax audit notification; the notice of discrepancies falls outside it. The cost: a complaint to the authorised body about a document outside its jurisdiction does not suspend the thirty-day compliance period, and on the next working day after it expires the bank accounts are frozen and e-invoice issuance is suspended. The correct addressee of a pre-court complaint against such a notification is the superior tax authority, under the Administrative Procedure Code.

Mistake 2. Expecting the court to reject a claim filed without a prior complaint. Article 194(1)(4) requires the authorised body to refuse a complaint where a claim has been filed on the same questions, and paragraph 33 of Supreme Court Resolution No. 9 expressly describes a challenge “directly in court”. The cost: thirty to ninety working days of administrative process lost while interest runs at 20.9375% per annum — roughly 2.5% to 7% of the amount in issue.

Mistake 3. Answering a notice of discrepancies with a bundle of source documents. Article 137(5) expressly prohibits demanding documents for compliance, and the list of documents is given “where any exist”. The cost: documents disclosed voluntarily become the material for ordering an audit under Chapter 3, paragraph 5(5) of the Rules in Order No. 659 — “confirmation of the breaches stated in a notice of discrepancies”.

Mistake 4. Missing the fifteen working days for an objection to the preliminary act. Paragraph 10 of the Rules in Order No. 627: where no objection is filed, the audit is completed within one working day of the deadline expiring. The cost: the loss of a free stage with mandatory escalation to the Department, whose position “is subject to mandatory application”, and the transfer of the dispute to a fee-paying judicial stage.

Mistake 5. Counting the audit ceiling in working days and never checking the calendar one. The second paragraph of Article 163(3) adds to the working-day limits a separate ceiling of one hundred and eighty calendar days for audits under paragraphs 2 and 3, excluding large business and international information requests. The cost: a procedural breach missed that could have stood as a free-standing ground for setting the results aside.

Mistake 6. Assuming that suspending an audit costs the tax authority nothing. The suspension period is excluded from the audit period only for the six categories in Article 163(6); in every other case it counts. The cost: the taxpayer fails to track the exhaustion of the period in an ordinary thematic audit and loses the argument that the audit overran.

Mistake 7. Refusing access on a ground that is not in Article 168. The list of three grounds is exhaustive. The cost:forty-five MCI — KZT 194,625 — under Article 288(3) of the Administrative Offences Code, sixty MCI on repetition, suspension of debit operations under Article 86(2)(3), and an act of denial of access on the file.

Mistake 8. Attaching to a complaint documents not produced during the audit, without pricing the consequences.Article 195(4) entitles the authorised body to verify them through a thematic and a repeat thematic audit. The cost:consideration of the complaint is suspended for the audit plus fifteen working days from receipt of the act, and the dispute stretches into months while interest runs.

Mistake 9. Missing the gap in suspension between the administrative and the judicial route. Suspension on a complaint runs until the decision; suspension on a claim begins on the day the case is accepted for hearing. The cost: in the interval, enforced collection measures may attach to the disputed amounts.

Mistake 10. Computing the state duty on the tax alone, without interest. Article 665(1)(4) computes the duty on the disputed amount of taxes, customs payments and budget payments “(including interest)”. The cost: an underpaid duty and a returned claim, with the risk of missing the one-month deadline.

Mistake 11. Assuming the limitation period is three years for everyone. Article 65(2) gives five years to large business entities, subsoil users, residents with Chapter 33 obligations and VAT payers on imports paid by the offset method. The cost: documents destroyed for years four and five while the tax authority retains the right to assess.

Mistake 12. Overlooking that an unremedied desk control notification extends the limitation period. Article 65(8)(5) extends the period until compliance with a notification served before expiry, as regards the breaches identified. The cost: a period the taxpayer treated as closed remains open indefinitely.

Mistake 13. Citing Supreme Court Normative Resolution No. 9 without translating the article numbers. The resolution is in force, but its text has not been renumbered for Code 214-VIII and cites Articles 96, 115, 158 and 159 of the repealed Code. The cost: a procedural argument built on a provision that no longer exists.

Mistake 14. Using the notification form under Order No. 633 in its original wording. Order No. 111 of 20 February 2026 (Justice Ministry No. 38021) restated the heading, paragraph 1 and the form itself, with effect for relations arising from 1 January 2026. The cost: an argument about a defect in the form, built on a version of the form no longer in force.

Mistake 15. Expecting to be able to self-assess audit risk against published criteria. Order No. 252 was repealed by Order No. 586 with effect from 1 January 2026, and Article 93(3) expressly prohibits disclosing the risk management methodology to taxpayers. The cost: planning against criteria that no longer apply.

Mistake 16. Filing a repeat complaint against a notification already decided. Paragraph 31 of the Regulation under Order No. 529: such a complaint is left without consideration and is not put to the commission. The cost: time spent while the one-month period for a court claim continues to run.

Whom the regime suits, whom it does not, and when to take advice

The 2026 regime favours taxpayers with a high and transparent tax burden. Article 152(4) prohibits ordering a comprehensive audit for a period in which the tax burden ratio is at least 90% of the sectoral upper ratio. It is the only objective protection against a comprehensive audit in the Code.

The regime favours participants in horizontal monitoring. Article 153(4) excludes tax audits for periods spent in monitoring, subject to fourteen exceptions. Interest for those taxpayers is calculated at a multiple of 0.65 rather than 1.25 — roughly half.

It favours micro and small business on document flow. Article 164(1) caps demands for documents at two per audit — but only for taxpayers not classified as medium or large business entities.

It does not suit companies that planned risk against published criteria. From 1 January 2026 the tax risk management methodology is confidential under Article 93(3), and Order No. 252 has been repealed.

The regime does not suit large business entities on three counts: a five-year limitation period instead of three; no one-hundred-and-eighty-calendar-day ceiling on an audit; and a penalty of 80% of the assessed amount under Article 278(1) of the Administrative Offences Code, against 20% for small business.

It does not suit companies trading through counterparties of unstable standing. Article 137(6) closes off the explanation route for four categories of transaction, and the only way out is a court finding that the acquisition actually took place.

Professional review is warranted in five situations: where a notification falls within Article 137(6) and the prospects of a court finding must be assessed; where a preliminary act has been served and the fifteen working days need to be spent on a substantive objection; where the route of appeal is being chosen and the amount at stake makes the state duty and the interest-accrual period comparable magnitudes; where the audit concerns transfer pricing or treaty application, and is therefore decided at Committee level; and where the company is in liquidation, for which only a comprehensive audit is available.

If you are structuring a Kazakhstan presence from scratch, the tax profile of the future company also determines the depth of control it will face: company registration and ongoing support in Kazakhstan.

Frequently asked questions

Is a complaint to the Ministry of Finance mandatory before going to court?

No. Article 91(5) of the Administrative Procedure Code permits recourse to the court without a pre-court appeal “unless otherwise provided by law”, and the Tax Code does provide otherwise: Article 194(1)(4) requires the authorised body to refuse a complaint where a claim has been filed on the same questions, and paragraph 33 of Supreme Court Normative Resolution No. 9 expressly describes challenging the notification “directly in court”. For officials’ acts and omissions the answer is the same: Article 199(1) expressly permits an appeal “to a superior tax authority or to the court”. For the remaining notifications — the notice of discrepancies, for instance — the Code offers no such alternative, and the general rule in Article 91(5) applies, so a pre-court complaint precedes any claim.

How long is there to comply with a desk control notification in 2026?

Thirty working days following the day of service (Article 82(2)). For a notice confirming that a supply actually took place the period is shortened to ten working days.

What is the desk control notification called now?

A notice of discrepancies identified by desk control (Article 82(1)(4)). The name “notice to remedy breaches” belongs to a different document — Article 83(1)(3).

Can bank accounts be frozen without a court order?

Yes. Article 86 requires no judicial act: the tax authority issues the instruction, it takes effect on the day the bank receives it, and it is to be executed unconditionally. On non-compliance with a desk control notification the freeze is applied within one working day of the compliance deadline expiring (Article 137(9)(2)).

Can wages be paid while the accounts are frozen?

Yes. Article 86(4) exempts from the freeze the taking of money under enforcement documents for the recovery of wages, pensions, benefits, severance and remuneration, together with the transfer of social payments and the payment of taxes, interest and fines.

How long can a tax audit last?

Thirty working days as a base; with extensions, up to fifty, one hundred and sixty or one hundred and eighty working days depending on the category. Audits under Article 163(2) and (3) are additionally capped at one hundred and eighty calendar days, a cap that does not apply to large business entities or where an information request has been sent abroad.

What is a preliminary tax audit act, and what is it for?

A document on preliminary results, served before the audit act is drawn up (Article 169(1)). It gives fifteen working days for a written objection, which is considered with mandatory escalation to the Department or the Committee if the inspectors disagree. No state duty is payable at that stage.

Does interest accrue during an appeal?

Yes. The closed list of nine cases in Article 85(3) in which interest is not charged does not include the appeal period. The disputed amounts are, however, excluded from arrears and from tax debt during the appeal in the appealed part (Articles 5(1) and 5(3)), so enforced collection is suspended while accrual is not.

What is the state duty for challenging a notification in court?

1% of the disputed amount including interest for legal entities, capped at 20,000 MCI; 0.1%, capped at 500 MCI, for individual entrepreneurs and peasant or farming enterprises (Article 665(1)(4)). A cassation appeal attracts 50% of the applicable rate.

Is the limitation period three years or five?

Five years for large business entities, subsoil users, residents with Chapter 33 obligations and VAT payers on imports paid by the offset method; three years for everyone else (Article 65(2)).

Can the Minister of Finance’s order itself be challenged, rather than only its application?

Yes. Chapter 15-1 of the Administrative Procedure Code (Articles 167-1 to 167-3) provides for a claim challenging the lawfulness of a subordinate normative legal act. The deadline is three months from the day the claimant learned of the infringement; the burden of proof lies on the body that adopted the act; and the judgment binds an indeterminate class of persons.

Are the criteria for selecting taxpayers for audit published?

No. Order No. 252 on criteria not constituting confidential information was repealed by Order No. 586 with effect from 1 January 2026, and Article 93(3) expressly prohibits disclosing the risk management methodology to taxpayers. Only the grounds for deciding to conduct an audit, under Order No. 659, are public.

What happens if the inspectors are refused entry?

Refusing to accept the audit order does not cancel the audit: a refusal act is drawn up with attesting witnesses and a video recording, and the audit start date becomes the date of that act (Article 162(4)–(6)). Unlawful obstruction of access attracts forty-five MCI under Article 288(3) of the Administrative Offences Code; denial of access is separately a ground for freezing debit operations.

How many times can documents be demanded during an audit?

No more than twice — but that limit does not apply to medium and large business entities (Article 164(1)). Ten working days are allowed for compliance, extendable to thirty.

Can the assessed amounts be paid in instalments?

Yes, where the taxpayer agrees with the assessment: sixty working days in equal instalments every fifteen working days, with interest accruing for each day of the extension. No instalments are available for excise or for taxes withheld at source (Article 171(6)).

Key takeaways

• Tax Code No. 214-VIII of 18 July 2025 has applied since 1 January 2026; Code No. 120-VI is repealed and its article numbering does not apply to 2026.

• Code 214-VIII has been amended once, by Law No. 308-VIII of 11 June 2026; no procedural article on control or appeals was touched by it.

• Desk control produces a notice of discrepancies (Article 82(1)(4)), not a notice to remedy breaches; the latter is a separate document under Article 83(1)(3).

• Article 82 contains three separate thirty-working-day periods running from different events: issuance of the notice of discrepancies from completion of desk control, issuance of the notice confirming a supply from identification of the suspect transactions, and compliance from service.

• Demanding documents for compliance with a desk control notification is expressly prohibited by Article 137(5).

• Article 137(6) closes off the explanation route for four categories of transaction, but does not apply where a court has found that the goods, works or services were actually acquired.

• Account freezes on non-compliance take effect within one working day and require no court order (Article 137(9), Article 86).

• Tax control under Article 151(2) is confined to tax audits; desk control, e-invoice control and other forms of control are separate control measures under Article 93(2).

• From 1 January 2026 the audit selection criteria are confidential under Article 93(3); Order No. 252 was repealed by Order No. 586.

• No comprehensive audit is ordered for a period in which the tax burden ratio is at least 90% of the sectoral upper ratio (Article 152(4)).

• The audit ceiling is fifty, one hundred and sixty or one hundred and eighty working days by category, and audits under Article 163(2) and (3) are additionally capped at one hundred and eighty calendar days, excluding large business and international requests.

• The preliminary act gives fifteen working days for an objection and, where the inspectors disagree, triggers mandatory escalation to the Department or the Committee (Order No. 627).

• The limitation period is three years; five years for large business entities, subsoil users, residents with Chapter 33 obligations and VAT payers on imports paid by the offset method (Article 65(2)).

• A complaint to the Ministry of Finance is filed within thirty working days and decided within thirty working days, or forty-five under tax monitoring, extendable to ninety.

• The Appeal Commission under Order No. 529 sits weekly on Thursdays, votes by simple majority and counts Atameken’s vote as one; Annexes 1 and 2 to the order disagree on its size — “not fewer than nine” against exactly nine.

• Pre-court appeal is mandatory neither against a tax audit notification (Article 191(3)) nor against officials’ acts and omissions (Article 199(1)) — both provisions offer an “or to the court” alternative; for the remaining notifications there is no such alternative and the general rule in Article 91(5) of the Administrative Procedure Code applies.

• In court the burden of proof lies on the tax authority, which may not rely on grounds absent from the audit act (Article 129 APC, paragraph 31 of Supreme Court Resolution No. 9).

• Interest accrues at 1.25 times the base rate and is not stopped by an appeal; at a base rate of 16.75% that is 20.9375% per annum.

Summary

Desk control, tax audits and appeals in Kazakhstan in 2026 are governed by the Tax Code — Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 214-VIII of 18 July 2025, in force from 1 January 2026, which replaced Code No. 120-VI of 25 December 2017; Code 214-VIII has been amended once, by Law No. 308-VIII of 11 June 2026, which did not touch the procedural articles. Desk control under Articles 136–137 produces a notice of discrepancies, which the tax authority must serve within thirty working days following the day the control exercise is completed and which the taxpayer must answer within thirty working days of service, either by filing additional reporting or by filing an explanation; demanding documents for compliance is prohibited by Article 137(5), and an explanation is not permitted for the four categories of transaction in Article 137(6) except where a court has found that the goods, works or services were actually acquired. On non-compliance, debit operations on bank accounts and the issuance of electronic invoices are suspended within one working day without any court order. A tax audit takes the form of a comprehensive, thematic or counter audit or a time-and-motion survey; the base period is thirty working days from service of the audit order, the ceiling is fifty, one hundred and sixty or one hundred and eighty working days by category, with an additional cap of one hundred and eighty calendar days for audits under Article 163(2) and (3) that does not apply to large business entities. No comprehensive audit is ordered for a period in which the tax burden ratio is at least 90% of the sectoral upper ratio, and the audit selection criteria have been confidential under Article 93(3) since 1 January 2026. Before the audit act a preliminary act is served, and an objection to it may be filed within fifteen working days with mandatory escalation to the Department or the Committee under Order of the Minister of Finance No. 627. The limitation period is three years, and five years for large business entities, subsoil users, residents with Chapter 33 obligations and VAT payers on imports paid by the offset method. The tax audit notification is appealed to the Ministry of Finance within thirty working days and decided within thirty working days, or forty-five under tax monitoring, through the Appeal Commission created by Order No. 529; every other notification is challenged outside the Chapter 18 procedure, under the Administrative Procedure Code. Pre-court appeal against a tax audit notification is not a precondition of suit, as follows from Article 194(1)(4) of the Code and paragraph 33 of Supreme Court Normative Resolution No. 9 of 22 December 2022. The court deadline is one month, the state duty is 1% of the disputed amount including interest for legal entities capped at 20,000 MCI, the burden of proof lies on the tax authority under Article 129 of the Administrative Procedure Code, and interest accrues at 1.25 times the National Bank base rate and is not suspended by an appeal.

Sources

1. Tax Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 214-VIII of 18 July 2025 on the Adilet portal

2. Code 214-VIII, Article 5 — concepts relating to tax debt, and the interest multiplier

3. Code 214-VIII, Article 65 — limitation periods for the tax obligation and claim

4. Code 214-VIII, Article 82 — notifications of an informational and preventive character

5. Code 214-VIII, Article 83 — mandatory notifications

6. Code 214-VIII, Article 85 — late-payment interest

7. Code 214-VIII, Article 86 — suspension of debit operations

8. Code 214-VIII, Article 88 — suspension of electronic invoice issuance

9. Code 214-VIII, Article 93 — the tax risk management system

10. Code 214-VIII, Articles 136–137 — desk control

11. Code 214-VIII, Articles 151–173 — tax control and tax audits

12. Code 214-VIII, Articles 191–200 — the appeal procedure

13. Code 214-VIII, Article 665 — rates of state duty in the courts

14. Administrative Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 350-VI of 29 June 2020

15. APC, Article 91 — the appeal procedure

16. APC, Article 102 — jurisdiction over administrative cases

17. APC, Article 129 — the burden of proof

18. APC, Article 136 — the deadline for filing a claim

19. APC, Articles 167-1 to 167-3 — challenging the lawfulness of a subordinate normative legal act

20. APC, Articles 168–169 — appeal and cassation

21. Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan on Administrative Offences No. 235-V of 5 July 2014

22. Administrative Offences Code, Article 278 — understatement of taxes and other obligatory budget payments

23. Administrative Offences Code, Article 288 — failure to comply with the lawful demands of the state revenue authorities

24. Entrepreneurial Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 375-V of 29 October 2015

25. Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 215-VIII of 18 July 2025 “On amendments and additions to certain legislative acts of the Republic of Kazakhstan on taxation”

26. Order of the Minister of Finance No. 529 of 24 September 2025 — composition and Regulation of the Appeal Commission (Justice Ministry No. 36923)

27. Order of the Minister of Finance No. 627 of 24 October 2025 — Rules and deadlines for serving the preliminary tax audit act and hearing objections (Justice Ministry No. 37249)

28. Order of the Minister of Finance No. 633 of 28 October 2025 — form of the notice of discrepancies (Justice Ministry No. 37245)

29. Order of the Minister of Finance No. 111 of 20 February 2026 — restated form of the notice of discrepancies (Justice Ministry No. 38021)

30. Order of the Acting Minister of Finance No. 659 of 31 October 2025 — Rules and grounds for deciding to conduct a tax audit (Justice Ministry No. 37316)

31. Order of the Minister of Finance No. 252 of 20 February 2018 — Rules on applying the risk management system, repealed with effect from 01.01.2026 (Justice Ministry No. 16534)

32. Order of the Minister of Finance No. 586 of 9 October 2025 — repeal of certain orders (Justice Ministry No. 37110)

33. Normative Resolution of the Supreme Court No. 9 of 22 December 2022 “On certain questions of the application of tax legislation by the courts”

34. Normative Resolution of the Supreme Court No. 2 of 9 April 2026 “On certain questions of the application of procedural legislation in administrative cases”

35. Presidential Decree No. 500 of 26 January 2021 “On specialised administrative courts”

36. Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 239-VIII of 8 December 2025 “On the republican budget for 2026–2028” — MCI of KZT 4,325

37. National Bank of Kazakhstan — the 2026 calendar of base rate decision announcements

38. State Revenue Committee of the Ministry of Finance — official web resource

39. Kursiv.media, 27 August 2026 — State Revenue Committee data on tax audits for Q1 2026 and full-year 2025

40. Inbusiness.kz, 24 August 2026 — the State Revenue Committee on the share of cases lost on desk control acts

A methodological note on sources. The wording of Articles 5, 65, 82, 83, 85, 86, 88, 93, 136, 137, 152, 153, 154, 162, 163, 164, 168, 169, 170, 171, 191–200 and 665 of the Tax Code, and the text of Law No. 215-VIII, of Articles 16, 91, 102, 129, 136, 167-1 to 167-3, 168 and 169 of the Administrative Procedure Code, of Articles 278 and 288 of the Administrative Offences Code, and the text of Supreme Court Normative Resolutions Nos. 9 and 2, were checked directly against the official texts on the Adilet portal. The texts of Ministry of Finance Orders Nos. 529, 627, 633, 111 and 659 were read on the same portal, including their Justice Ministry registration numbers and commencement dates. The list of articles amended by Law No. 308-VIII was established from the footnotes within the Code itself, not from summaries of the amendments.

Where sources diverge or fall silent, that is shown rather than smoothed over. The State Revenue Committee publishes no desk control statistics: the statistics section of kgd.gov.kz carries no such series, and the page “Features of complying with desk control notifications … in 2026” of 30 January 2026 is a webinar announcement containing no figures. The figures for Q1 2026 and full-year 2025 are taken from a business publication reproducing Committee data and are marked as a secondary source. The proposition that pre-court appeal is not mandatory is a conclusion drawn from reading Article 191(3), Article 194(1)(4) and paragraph 33 of Normative Resolution No. 9 together; some commentary takes the opposite view, and that divergence is stated in the article rather than resolved by omission.The proposition that a tax audit order is not subject to registration with the legal statistics body is likewise flagged as a conclusion drawn from reading the provisions together, not as a quotation from any official explanation. Local consultancies, accounting blogs and survey aggregators were not used as sources.

This material is for information only and does not constitute legal, tax, financial, investment or consulting advice. Before taking any decision, individual professional advice should be obtained, taking account of the specific situation, jurisdiction, company status and the regulators’ current requirements.

Updated: August 2026.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Get expert materials and special offers on citizenship and residence by investment. Once a week, no spam.

All services on the platform

Everything you need to start and run a business - in one place

2–10 days
Company Setup
Kazakhstan company with a complete set of incorporation documents
Start
Monthly
Accounting Services
Accounting and Tax Compliance, Reporting, and Support in Accordance with Kazakhstan Requirements
4–8 weeks
Immigration Services
Visas, Work Permits
7–30 days
Banking Services
Corporate Bank Accounts in Kazakhstan and Payment Services
Custom timeline
Permits and Licenses
Business Licenses and Activity Permits
Custom timeline
Legal Services
Corporate Documents, Contracts, Compliance, Licensing, and Company Structure Changes

All service providers on a single platform

International Free Zone Authority

Meydan Free Zone

Ajman Free Zone

Ajman Media City Free Zone

Sharjah Media City

Send WhatsApp message