The highest administrative court (NSS) has shortened the efforts of the financial administration to defend the hard line when issuing warrants. In his opinion he now has the right of a smaller Zlin company, which was ordered two years ago to hear that the tax authorities were not acting properly. The court also noted the financial report that tax procedures do not serve to punish entrepreneurs.
A safety order against the Zlín company Naryner Construction was issued in 2016 by the financial office for the Zlín region, followed by payment orders and accusations of the company's VAT debt, informs the Businessatel.cz server. Therefore, the company had to pay more than two million dollars, which, in the words of its executive director Michal Kramolis, was fundamentally damaged. Kramoliše was the regional court in Brno last year.
Financial management has already issued tax audits after three months because the company is unlikely to be able to prove some of its transactions and the VAT of 2.3 million is difficult to maintain. The reason for this is the unreliability of the contractor of the company. The decision of the NSS to refuse the Zlín Financial Office for Echo24 to give more comments.
That there would be a mistake, refused to recognize the financial administration. He only returned the sum to Kramoliš after the matter came to the public. The businessman is now starting a lawsuit for the company's charges.
The highest administrative court denies that a cover order can be issued as soon as the financial administration suspects irregularities in the tax liabilities. According to the court, the decisive factor is not only the current state of resources of the company, but also the general economic situation and its development, which may jeopardize future tax collection, must be examined. It also points out that tax procedures do not serve as a punishment for entrepreneurs.
The government does not support change
Deficiencies in the financial administration with regard to the issuance of reinsurance orders have recently been accepted by the Treasury, with the announcement of a change in the law. According to her, cover orders must be replaced by so-called safety oversight. Some opposition members from TOP 09, STAN and ODS have suggested that the issue of direct debit orders should be decided directly by the administrative court instead of the financial or customs administration. However, the government did not support their proposal, as the proposed amendment takes into account non-confessional interference in the concept and function of the administrative judiciary. Moreover, the transfer of jurisdiction would limit the effectiveness of the hedge.
The last year's tax advisory committee argued for the use of orders only as an extraordinary tool against tax evasion and not as a standard tool for tax administration. Security orders were also dealt with in the Chamber of Deputies, which last year called on the then Prime Minister Bohuslav Sobotka (ČSSD) to take such measures, so that the financial administration complied with the decision of the highest administrative court and used the orders only in justified cases.
Source link