The First Supreme Court Decisions on OnlyFans: Why a "Letter from the UK" Is Not Enough for Multi-Million Tax Fines by the State Tax Service
Today, the adult digital content creation industry is one of the most dynamic sectors of the creative economy, where Ukrainians hold one of the leading positions worldwide. However, this success is accompanied by a legal paradox, as Ukraine finds itself in a situation where the State Tax Service actively demands multi-million budget revenues, while law enforcement continues to massively open criminal proceedings for creating the same content.
Until recently, judicial practice in cases related to the OnlyFans platform was chaotic, as lower courts trusted analytical reports from the State Tax Service obtained through international exchange. However, June can be called a period of establishing judicial control over the State Tax Service's blind attempts to tax digital income.
Within one week, the Supreme Court issued two important decisions — on June 17 in case No. 240/22077/25 and on June 25 in case No. 560/9531/25 — which stood up for content creators. These decisions proved that the presence of information from foreign authorities (HMRC) is only a trigger for verification, not automatic proof of the taxpayer's guilt. The situation where the tax authorities manually match OnlyFans data to Ukrainian surnames, first names, and patronymics received an assessment from the highest judicial instance.
Mechanism of tax hunting and judicial practice
The State Tax Service of Ukraine receives information from the United Kingdom's Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC) regarding payments by Fenix International Ltd to Ukrainian residents.
Foreign authorities transmit text files with user names, email addresses, and the total value of transactions for the year.
The tax service is often forced to manually establish the connection between the Latin spelling of the name in the OnlyFans database and a specific Ukrainian citizen.
The State Tax Service interprets this data as indisputable evidence of foreign income subject to personal income tax (18%) and military levy (1.5%).
Analysis of court decisions reveals two opposing trends in courts' attitudes toward OnlyFans cases.
Case No. 340/4911/25
The State Tax Service charged an individual over 460 thousand hryvnias in taxes based on income data of 65,287 USD.
The court recognized the information from HMRC as "proper tax information." The key point was that the plaintiff did not provide any evidence, such as bank statements, to refute the receipt of funds.
The court concluded that when a taxpayer ignores tax service requests and does not provide their own version of fund movements, the court accepts the tax authority's data as true. The court emphasized that the burden of disproving income information in such cases shifts to the taxpayer.
Case No. 320/37297/25
The tax service tried to collect 2.8 million UAH from an OnlyFans model, claiming she earned 447,000 USD.
The court sided with the plaintiff, noting that the audit report contained no references to any primary documents: bank statements or contracts. The court stressed that data from HMRC is only analytical information, not proof of actual receipt of money into an account.
The tax authorities applied the NBU exchange rate as of 31.12.2022 to the entire annual amount instead of calculating the rate on the date of each of the 538 transactions. This led to the cancellation of almost all tax assessment notices.
The First Supreme Court Decisions
The above-mentioned decisions of the Administrative Cassation Court within the Supreme Court became the first cases where the country's highest judicial instance delved into the technological specifics of the OnlyFans platform, explaining the mechanism of protecting citizens from tax assessments based on assumptions.
The Supreme Court ruling of June 17, 2026, was the first warning for the State Tax Service. In this case, the Zhytomyr tax office tried to legitimize additional charges of about 460 thousand hryvnias, relying solely on data arrays from the British entity "Fenix International LTD" about income of 2.26 million hryvnias for 2020-2022. However, the Supreme Court found errors — from ignoring the tax address to incorrect application of the NBU exchange rate based on the data.
The Main Department of the State Tax Service in Zhytomyr region conducted an unscheduled audit of the model for the period 2020–2022. The basis was a letter from the State Tax Service of Ukraine with information from the competent UK authority about income from the OnlyFans platform totaling 2,266,424.04 UAH. The tax service raised claims regarding unpaid personal income tax, military levy, and imposed fines for failure to submit declarations and primary documents.
One of the main arguments of the cassation appeal was the tax authority's failure to comply with the procedure for notifying about the audit. The plaintiff indicated that the order to conduct the audit and the notification were sent not to her tax address but to her place of residence, information about which the controlling authority received from local government bodies.
The court noted that the right to start an audit arises only upon proper delivery of the order in the manner prescribed by Article 42 of the Tax Code of Ukraine. The Supreme Court pointed out that lower courts did not verify information in the State Tax Service's databases regarding the taxpayer's current address, which calls into question the legality of the entire audit.
Moreover, the tax service applied the NBU exchange rate as of December 31 of each year to the entire annual income amount.
The Supreme Court emphasized that according to paragraph 164.4 of the Tax Code of Ukraine, income in foreign currency must be converted into hryvnias at the exchange rate effective at the time of actual receipt of each individual income. Using the year-end rate led to artificial inflation of tax liabilities, which is a gross violation of substantive law norms.
The plaintiff also disputed that the data received from the UK pertained specifically to her. The foreign information lacked a unique tax identifier (RНОКПП) and bank account details, and identification was made only by matching name and date of birth.
The court recognized that the presence of platform identifiers (username, account reference) may have evidentiary value, but the tax service and courts did not investigate how exactly these data allow unambiguous linking of international information to the plaintiff. The court obliged that during the new review, mechanisms of account verification on OnlyFans be examined.
Later, on June 25, the Supreme Court confirmed its position in a case where the claim amount exceeded 1 million hryvnias. This case only reinforced the standard that the burden of proof lies with the state.
The Supreme Court explicitly stated that international tax information by its nature is only "information," not a "primary document" or "bank statement." The tax service did not provide any evidence of actual fund movement or the fact that the plaintiff engaged in content creation activities.
The court stressed that for taxation, it is necessary to establish the moment of acquiring ownership rights to income, not just record virtual figures in the OnlyFans account, which may include platform commissions or refunds.
The court emphasized that in administrative cases, the burden of proving the legality of the decision lies with the State Tax Service (Article 77 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine). The mere presence of a "letter from Britain" does not exempt the tax service from the obligation to prove the actual crediting of funds to the individual's accounts.
Both cases share the Supreme Court's position: during the consideration of such disputes, courts cannot limit themselves to a formal assessment of data received from the tax authority. Instead, they are obliged to investigate the specifics of the OnlyFans platform's operation, the payment procedure, the mechanism of income formation for content creators, and the peculiarities of interaction with the service. In fact, the Supreme Court requires lower courts to abandon the formal approach, under which tax assessment notices were based solely on text files received from the British HMRC and automatic matching of Latin names with Ukrainian taxpayers' data without proper verification of the origin and content of such information.
Now the Supreme Court demands an examination of how accounts are created and how identity verification is conducted, what exactly the amounts in reports mean — whether they are paid income or just account turnover, and whether the money was actually credited to accounts in Ukrainian or foreign banks.
The main risk for content creators remains outside the scope of tax disputes — in the realm of Article 301 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The State Tax Service identifies models for tax collection, and law enforcement (the State Bureau of Economic Security or police) may use the acts of these same audits as indirect acknowledgment of guilt in producing pornography.
The statistics are striking: the number of cases under Article 301 of the Criminal Code increased from 903 in 2023 to 1,522 cases in 2025. The police continue the practice of "sting operations" and confiscation of equipment (iPhone 14 Pro Max, routers), even if the content was created with the voluntary consent of adults. For example, in case No. 211/1442/25, a couple received 3 years probation, and their devices and gossip were destroyed by court order.
The June 2026 Supreme Court decisions are the first victory of substance over form. The rulings in cases No. 240/22077/25 and No. 560/9531/25 became the first precedents of such a level that protected bloggers from unjustified fiscal pressure.
Although these decisions significantly strengthened taxpayers' positions, they do not solve the problem of criminalization. In the absence of reform, Article 301 of the Criminal Code remains a tool for fulfilling plans and, sometimes, extorting money. Each year, about 1,500 criminal proceedings related to adult content are opened in Ukraine. The provision is often applied not only to organizers of illegal business but also to ordinary citizens who exchange intimate photos or videos by mutual consent.
The current legislation lacks a general definition of pornography and criteria to distinguish it from erotic products. This violates the principle of legal certainty, as restrictions on rights must be based on clear criteria.
Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp pages, on Facebook and Instagram to stay updated on the most important events.
