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
Το βασικό πρόβλημα για τον φορολογούμενο ήταν η έλλειψη αποδεικτικών στοιχείων. Η ΔΕΔ έκρινε ότι δεν είχε προσκομίσει έγγραφο που να αποδεικνύει την ανάληψη των χρημάτων από τον λογαριασμό του πατέρα του.
Παράλληλα, δεν υπήρχε σχετική δήλωση φόρου κληρονομιάς ούτε στοιχείο που να τεκμηριώνει ότι τα χρήματα είχαν πράγματι τοποθετηθεί σε τραπεζική θυρίδα πριν επανεμφανιστούν ως κατάθεση. Έτσι, ο συγκεκριμένος ισχυρισμός απορρίφθηκε ως αναπόδεικτος.
Η εξήγηση για τα 7.000 ευρώ δεν έγινε δεκτή
Ανάλογη τύχη είχε και η εξήγηση για τη δεύτερη επίμαχη κατάθεση των 7.000 ευρώ. Ο φορολογούμενος υποστήριξε ότι τα χρήματα αποτελούσαν επιστροφή δανείου που είχε χορηγήσει σε φίλο του αρκετά χρόνια νωρίτερα. Ο ισχυρισμός αυτός δεν κατάφερε τελικά να ανατρέψει τα ευρήματα του φορολογικού ελέγχου.
Ο τελικός φόρος των 23.780 ευρώ
Ο τελικός «λογαριασμός» για τον φορολογούμενο διαμορφώθηκε στα 23.780 ευρώ. Από το ποσό αυτό, τα 10.566 ευρώ αντιστοιχούσαν σε διαφορά φόρου εισοδήματος, τα 10.837 ευρώ σε πρόσθετο φόρο λόγω ανακρίβειας και τα 2.376 ευρώ σε διαφορά εισφοράς αλληλεγγύης.
