His explanations were not sufficiently substantiated, resulting in the case reaching the Dispute Resolution Directorate.
In the tax administration microscope were found bank deposits the taxpayer, who attempted to justify the origin of the money by citing cash who, as he argued, had guarded in bank safe, money from his fatherBut also an old loan to a friend.
His explanations, however, were not sufficiently substantiated, resulting in the case reaching the Dispute Resolution Directorate (TEN), which was invited to consider his appeal against the additional tax charge.
Control of banking movements
As part of the investigation, the movements of the taxpayer's bank accounts were examined, and the audit also went on to calculate the capital of previous years that could be invoked to justify its assets.
Following the submission of additional data, a new capital consumption table was set up, with the potentially formed capital for him being estimated at EUR 386,062 and for his wife at EUR 62,026.
The two deposits found in the focus
Two deposits, worth 145,000 euros and 7,000 euros, were found at the heart of the dispute. In the case of EUR 145,000, however, the entire amount was not considered an unjustified asset increase.
The tax audit, after taking into account the available capital of previous years, accepted that it could be justified EUR 111,358,36 and limited the undue amount to EUR 33,641,64.
The claim for money from the deposit box
The taxpayer gave his version of the origin of the money. He argued that on the same day on which the 145,000 euro deposit was made he had taken this amount from a bank deposit box and had then deposited it in his account.
According to him, 100,000 euros came from his father's forward testimony and had come to him after his death.
Why the explanations were rejected
The main problem for the taxpayer was the lack of evidence. The TEN considered that it had not provided a document proving the withdrawal of the money from his father's account.
At the same time, there was no relevant heritage tax statement nor evidence that the money had actually been placed in a bank vault before re-emerging as a deposit. Thus, this claim was rejected as unproven.
The explanation for the 7,000 euros was not accepted
The explanation for the second controversial deposit of 7,000 euros had similar luck. The taxpayer argued that the money was a loan refund he had granted to a friend several years earlier. This claim did not ultimately reverse the findings of tax control.
The final tax of EUR 23,780
The final «account» for the taxpayer it was set at 23,780 euros. Of this amount, EUR 10,566 corresponded to a difference in income tax, EUR 10,837 in additional tax due to inaccuracy and EUR 2,376 in a difference in solidarity contribution.
