Rada fails for the second time to scrap the duty-free threshold on parcels under €150: 194 votes against the required 226

On 1 September 2026, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine for the second time failed to muster the required number of votes to adopt bills No. 15460 and No. 15112d, which provide for the abolition of the current exemption on international postal shipments valued at up to €150. Only 194 members of parliament voted in favour of the legislative changes, against the required 226. Thus, parliament once again failed to reach the constitutional majority threshold, and the duty-free regime for parcels remains unchanged.

The vote and the numbers: what fell short

According to the broadcast data of the session published by RBC-Ukraine, a minimum of 226 "yes" votes was required to adopt both bills. In fact, 194 deputies voted in favour, leaving a shortfall of 32 votes. This is already the second time these initiatives have failed in the plenary chamber. Meanwhile, the relevant committee of the Verkhovna Rada, on 26 August 2026, for the third time recommended that parliament support the taxation of international parcels, indicating the systemic nature of the problem: the committee work is complete, yet the necessary factional coalitions cannot be formed in the session hall.

The Prime Minister's appeal and the context of the defence shortfall

At the same session on 1 September, the Prime Minister of Ukraine, Serhiy Haidai, addressed the members of parliament with a direct appeal to support the bills needed to raise funds covering the financing shortfall of the Defence Forces. He included bills No. 15460 and No. 15112d among them. According to the head of government, this year Ukraine could receive around 30 billion dollars from international partners, provided the commitments it has taken on are fulfilled. At the same time, the defence budget shortfall is estimated at 27 billion dollars.

Haidai explained that among the key reasons for the formation of such a shortfall are the rising cost of the war due to an increase in the number of aerial attacks by the Russian Federation, the use of drones and missiles, and the fact that the Ministry of Defence in the first half of 2026 financed current expenditures from funds planned for the second half. "I strongly ask you to support these bills, which are already on the agenda, and in parallel, to work together to bring absolutely all the others onto the agenda as quickly as possible," the Prime Minister emphasised.

Commitments to the IMF and the chronology of the reform

The need to abolish the €150 duty-free threshold is driven by a number of commitments that Ukraine has taken on with the International Monetary Fund. At the end of March 2026, the government adopted a bill with the corresponding provisions. The relevant parliamentary committee, on 26 August, for the third time recommended that the Rada support the taxation of parcels. Thus, at the government and committee level the reform has passed all the necessary stages, but at the plenary level it has twice failed to be approved.

What will change for citizens if the reform is adopted

Currently, Ukraine applies an exemption to parcels from abroad valued at up to €150: such shipments are not subject to tax. If the bills are adopted, starting from 1 January 2027, a 20% VAT will apply to international postal shipments on the full value of the parcel. An exception is provided for non-commercial shipments — gifts and personal items valued at up to €45, sent from one individual to another: such parcels will not be taxed.

Contradictory data

Publications by various outlets show differences in the wording describing the outcome of the vote. RBC-Ukraine and Korrespondent use the neutral phrasing "did not support" / "failed to pass", emphasising the passive nature of the failure — a lack of votes. At the same time, ITC.ua writes in its headline that the "Rada blocked the strict tax reform", which implies active resistance on the part of some deputies. Factually, both versions describe the same result — 194 votes against the required 226 — but the interpretation of the motive (passive absence of a factional quorum versus active blocking) differs. In addition, the fact that the committee recommended the bill "for the third time" while the plenary vote failed "for the second time" may cause confusion. These figures do not contradict each other: the committee recommendation and the plenary vote are different procedural stages, and the committee is entitled to issue repeated recommendations until the bill is either adopted or removed from the agenda.