From 1 January 2026 a new Tax Code is in force in Kazakhstan, and the rules of the game have changed radically: scheduled audits have been cancelled, and the preliminary decision on appointment of a tax audit has become the main alarm signal for business. If your company or sole proprietor has received a letter from the tax authority (УГД/ДГД) on its intention to conduct an audit, this is not a sentence but the beginning of a procedure in which you have specific rights and deadlines.
From this article you will learn: what a preliminary decision is and what force it has, how and within what time frame to file a reasoned objection, which grounds for an audit are permissible at all under the law, and how to achieve cancellation of the audit if the tax authority has breached the procedure. No fluff — only rules, deadlines and calculations.
What changed in 2026: the new tax audit regime
The old Tax Code (editions 2017–2025) ceased to be in force on 1 January 2026. It was replaced by Code No. 214-VIII of 18 July 2025. The key change for entrepreneurs: the division of audits into scheduled and unscheduled has disappeared. An audit is now a response measure to an identified breach, not a calendar event.
Under art. 153(1) of the НК РК, a tax audit is appointed in only four cases:
| No. | Ground for appointment of the audit | Rule |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Application or requirement of the taxpayer | art. 153(1)(1) of the НК |
| 2 | Grounds under the Criminal Procedure Code | art. 153(1)(2) of the НК |
| 3 | Decision of the tax authority to conduct an audit | art. 153(1)(3) of the НК |
| 4 | Expiry of the subsoil use contract term | art. 153(1)(4) of the НК |
This is a closed list. If your situation does not fall under any of the four items, the tax authority has no right to appoint an audit. The audit itself is conducted only on the basis of an order (art. 153(2) of the НК).
Most "regular" business audits go under the third ground — the tax authority's decision. The procedure for adopting such a decision is determined by the authorised body: from 1 January 2026 this is Order No. 659 of the acting Minister of Finance of the RK of 31 October 2025. It is this Order that describes which identified breaches give the State Revenue Committee (КГД) or the Department of State Revenues the right to make an audit decision.
What a preliminary decision is and what force it has
A preliminary decision on appointment of a tax audit is a document from the Office of State Revenues (УГД), signed by the head or deputy, reporting an intention to conduct an audit. In plain words: the tax authority (УГД/ДГД) warns that an administrative procedure has been launched against you.
The legal nature of this document is determined by the АППК РК. Under sub-clause 2) of art. 62(1) of the АППК РК, one of the grounds for initiating an administrative procedure is the initiative of the administrative body. And part three of the same article clarifies: such an initiative must rely either on a requirement of the legislation on administrative procedures or on administrative discretion.
Translating from legal language: the state body does not act at its own will. Any of its decisions must have a specific lawful ground and authority. No ground from the list of art. 153 of the НК — no right of initiative.
Important point about the document's force. The preliminary decision in itself does not generate obligations for you. This is not yet an order or an audit. Until the final administrative act is issued, you are not obliged to provide either documents or explanations. This follows directly from art. 73 of the АППК РК, which regulates the preliminary decision stage as a separate phase before the final act is adopted.
Presumption of your good faith: a rule that is forgotten
There is a rule that the tax authority in practice ignores — wrongly, since it works in your favour. Art. 15(1) of the АППК РК establishes: materials, objects, documents and information provided by a participant in the administrative procedure are considered reliable until the administrative body proves otherwise.
What does this mean in practice? If you have already executed a desk control notice or given explanations, and this is reflected in the tax authority's information system, the burden of refuting the reliability of your data lies on the tax authority, not on you. You are not obliged to prove your case again.
The right to object: precise deadlines under the АППК РК
This is the central instrument of defence at an early stage. The law directly obliges the tax authority to give you the opportunity to be heard before the act is adopted.
Art. 73(1) of the АППК РК: the administrative body is obliged to give the participant the opportunity to express a position on the preliminary decision and to give notice of this no later than three working days before the administrative act is adopted.
Art. 73(3) of the АППК РК: you are entitled to provide or express an objection to the preliminary decision within no more than two working days from the day of its receipt.
| Action | Deadline | Rule |
|---|---|---|
| Tax authority (УГД/ДГД) notifies you of the forthcoming act | no later than 3 working days in advance | art. 73(1) of the АППК |
| You file an objection to the preliminary decision | no later than 2 working days from receipt | art. 73(3) of the АППК |
Practical advice: do not limit yourself to a verbal statement at the hearing. Prepare a written reasoned objection addressed to the tax authority (УГД/ДГД). A written document fixes your position, forces the body to respond to each argument and forms an evidence base in case of court. Following the hearing the tax authority (УГД/ДГД) draws up a protocol, and the management either terminates the procedure or issues an audit order.
Typical taxpayer mistakes
Practice shows that business inflicts most of the damage on itself by panicking and acting prematurely. Let us examine three mistakes that are the most expensive.
Mistake 1: premature handover of documents
Why this happens: on receiving the letter, the director or accountant is frightened by the wording "tax audit" and carries the documents on the first informal request. What it threatens: you voluntarily disclose information before the body has acquired a lawful right to demand it. Until the audit order is registered, the tax authority (УГД/ДГД) is not entitled to summon you or request documents. Moreover, art. 347(3) of the НК РК directly prohibits the tax authority from requiring performance of obligations not provided for by the Code.
Mistake 2: voluntary submission of additional reporting
Why this happens: the tax authorities "amicably" ask you to submit an additional return for a past period, and business agrees in order to "remove questions". What it threatens: if the limitation period for the period has almost expired, filing an additional return extends it, giving the tax authority additional time for assessments. With your own hands you open a window for claims that was about to close on its own.
Mistake 3: silence instead of objection
Why this happens: the entrepreneur thinks objecting is useless and misses the two-day deadline under art. 73 of the АППК. What it threatens: you lose the cheapest stage of defence. Objecting to the preliminary decision is fast. Challenging an already appointed audit in court takes months and lawyer expenses.
How to act correctly: step-by-step algorithm
On receiving a preliminary decision, act by scheme, not by emotion.
Step 1. Do not hand over documents. Until the order is registered you are not obliged to provide anything.
Step 2. Check the ground. Compare the preliminary decision with the closed list in art. 153 of the НК. If a ground is not in the list, this is already an argument of unlawfulness. If the audit is thematic, check whether its subject is in the list of art. 156(2) of the НК (there are 31 closed items: from confirmation of VAT excess to breaches under desk control).
Step 3. File a written objection. Deadline — no later than 2 working days from receipt (art. 73(3) of the АППК). In the objection specifically state: which ground is absent, which documents you have already submitted, that the data are reflected in the tax authority's system.
Step 4. Use the presumption of reliability. If a desk control notice has been executed, refer directly to art. 15(1) of the АППК: your data are reliable until the tax authority (УГД/ДГД) proves otherwise.
Step 5. Monitor the deadline for the final act. The law allots a limited time for the final decision on the administrative case. Excess is an independent procedural breach that you record for court.
Desk control: the most frequent ground and how to dispute it
Most often the tax authority (УГД/ДГД) appoints an audit citing non-execution of a desk control notice. The legal chain here is as follows:
Art. 137(10) of the НК РК: the tax authority is entitled to conduct an audit on discrepancies identified by desk control if the notice has not been executed on time or if the authority doubts the reliability of the reasons given in the explanation.
Sub-clause 24) of art. 156(2) of the НК РК: a thematic audit is conducted on the issue of confirming the presence of breaches indicated in the notice of discrepancies under desk control.
Order of MF No. 659 of 31.10.2025: in the list of information taken into account when deciding on the audit, the item "non-elimination of discrepancies indicated in the notice" is directly named (clause 16 of Annex 2, clause 14 of Annex 3, sub-clause 5) of clause 5 of Annex 1).
Where your defence lies. The ground for the audit is precisely non-execution of the notice. If you have executed it or sent explanations, and this is recorded in the system, the ground falls away. In the objection you directly state: the notice has been executed, the discrepancies have been eliminated, which is confirmed by the information system data. The presumption of reliability under art. 15(1) of the АППК works here again. In practice in such situations the tax authority (УГД/ДГД) often itself cancels the preliminary decision and terminates the procedure.
Consequences and risks: what will happen if the procedure has been breached
Suppose that, despite your objection, the tax authority (УГД/ДГД) has issued an order. This is not yet the end — the third echelon of defence comes into force, based on the Entrepreneurial Code.
Art. 156(1) of the Entrepreneurial Code: an audit is deemed invalid if it has been conducted with a gross breach of the requirements for organisation and conduct of audits. Gross breaches include, in particular:
- absence of grounds for conducting the audit (art. 156(2)(1) of the Entrepreneurial Code) — direct hit if there is no ground from art. 153 of the НК;
- appointment of an audit on matters not within the body's competence (art. 156(2)(7) of the Entrepreneurial Code);
- conducting control with on-site visits without preliminary control without a visit, where this is required (art. 156(2)(10) of the Entrepreneurial Code).
The burden of proving lawfulness is not on you. Sub-clause 1) of art. 129(2) of the АППК РК: in a claim challenging an act, the burden of proof is borne by the respondent who issued the burdensome administrative act. That is, in court it is precisely the tax authority (УГД/ДГД) that must prove it had a lawful ground. Moreover, art. 129(3) of the АППК РК limits the body: it is entitled to rely only on grounds mentioned in the administrative act itself. The tax authority cannot "invent" a new ground after the fact.
And the final argument: art. 79(1) of the АППК РК requires that an administrative act be lawful and reasoned. An act without a lawful ground does not meet these requirements.
What this gives in practice. From the practice of appeals: a company receives an order on desk control, although the notice has been executed. Filing a court claim does not automatically stop the audit. But if the court establishes that there was no lawful ground, the audit is deemed invalid under art. 156 of the Entrepreneurial Code — and is forcibly terminated along with all its results.
Bottom line
The tax authority's (УГД/ДГД) preliminary decision is not an audit but a stage of the procedure at which you have specific rights: not to hand over documents, to file a written objection within two working days, to invoke the presumption of reliability and the closed list of grounds in art. 153 of the НК. If the procedure has been breached, the audit can be deemed invalid through the court, where the tax authority itself will have to prove lawfulness. Skilled defence at an early stage is cheaper and more effective than fighting an already started audit.
If your situation is similar to what is described, book a consultation. We will assess the grounds for the audit, check compliance with deadlines and prepare a reasoned objection tailored to your case.
Authors
Alibayev Yerkebulan
Director
Khassanov Yerbolat
Managing partner
Similar situation?
Tell us about the matter — we'll analyse your situation.