The analysis of arbitral practice on tax disputes involving the services of a management company, we can conclude that the main claim of controlling bodies occur for the following reasons: – Lack of documented fact that the service management company and the lack of registration source documents supporting the costs of management services (Resolution of the Federal SOA from 05.07.2007 F04-4519/2007 (36 009-A67-26) Resolution of the Federal WZO from 11.07.2006 A74-3953/05-F02-3313/06 -C1 Resolution FAS CO from 11.07.2006 A35-10272/04-S23, Resolution of the Federal TSBs from 19.01.2004 A11-4426/2003-K2-E-1961) – lack of economic benefits from the management services (Resolution of the Federal vivo from 28.02.2007 F09-1018/07-S3, Resolution of the Federal vivo from 01.03.2007 F09-1151/07-S3, Resolution of the Federal TSBs from 19.01.2004 on case number A11-4426/2003-K2-E-1961) and losses of individual enterprises in verification period (FAS ruling of the Ural District of 30.01.2007 N F09-153/07-S2 the case of N A76-3476/06). The arguments of the arbitration courts, in defense of the position of tax authorities, recognizing the costs for the services of a management company documents unconfirmed for tax purposes are: lack of specificity actually provided management services in the primary documents that allow them to recognize inappropriate requirements of Art. 9 of the Law "On Accounting ". For example, in the Decree of the WZO FAS 11.07.2006 A74-3953/05-F02-3313/06-S1, the court concluded that the costs to society for the services of a management company is not well documented, as in acts of acceptance executed work indicated only for the proper performance of services as defined by the contract to transfer the authority of the executive body, the month of execution services and the amount payable to the Executive Service.