NSS k důkaznímu břemenu a povinnosti zohlednit výsledky kontroly u dodavatele

SAC on the burden of proof and the obligation to take into account the results of the supplier's tax audit

The Supreme Administrative Court ("SAC") has published its judgment 4 Afs 132/2022. The facts of the case are not unusual. The tax authority disputed the claim for VAT deduction because it had doubts that a particular supply had taken place. However, some thoughts of the SAC are worth noting.

The SAC first explains, with reference to settled case law, the basic division of the burden of proof between the taxpayer and the tax authority. The tax entity is obliged to prove all the facts it has stated in the tax return. It proves its allegations primarily by means of accounting and other obligatory records. The tax authority may express doubts as to the veracity of the accounts and other records and is obliged to prove that there are serious and reasonable doubts of such a nature as to render the accounts inconclusive (it must identify specific discrepancies in the accounts). It is also for the taxable person to prove that the accounts are consistent with the facts by means of evidence from outside the sphere of the accounting.

Subsequently, the SAC considered the obligation of the administrator to take into account the outcome of the factually related proceedings with the supplier. According to the SAC, the tax administrator has the power to assess the factual background of each of the entities involved separately and originally. The tax authorities may, in a perfectly lawful manner, for example because of the complete passivity of one of the parties to the tax proceedings, reach different conclusions when assessing an identical factual event (in the case of the supplier, it will be proven that the factual event occurred and in the case of the customer, it will not). Nevertheless, according to the SAC, this does not mean that the facts established in one proceeding are completely irrelevant in another proceeding. If the taxpayer presents these facts to the tax administrator in its proceedings, the administrator cannot ignore them and must address the inconsistency in the evidentiary proceedings. In the present case, however, there was no factual discrepancy, since the supplier merely reported the supplies in question in his tax return and it was not proved during the tax audit that he had actually provided them.

If you have any questions, please contact the authors of this article or the members of the EY team with whom you usually work.

Authors:

Jevgenija Bajzíková

Michaela Nováková