NSS k procesním možnostem obrany proti konkludentnímu platebnímu výměru

SAC on the procedural possibilities of defending against an implied payment order

The Supreme Administrative Court[1] has once again addressed the procedural options available to taxpayers who wish to defend themselves against a tax assessed by default. An implied payment order is generally issued by the tax authorities when the tax assessed does not differ from the tax stated in the tax return. Taxpayers may choose this procedure if they are unsure of their position. They therefore take a conservative position in the regular tax return, pay the tax liability and wait for the implied payment order. They then consider what next step to take to bring the disputed issue before the tax authorities.

According to the SAC decision, taxpayers have two basic options in similar situations.

The first, and according to the SAC the preferred option, is to file a supplementary tax return against the actual tax return. This procedure is considered by the SAC to be the most appropriate way to resolve a disputed tax assessment. According to the SAC, the tax authority is obliged to respond to the supplementary tax return and correctly assess the tax (even if the amount of the tax that was implicitly assessed is disputed).

The second option, which is generally accepted by the SAC, is the direct filing of an administrative lawsuit against an implied payment assessment. Although the SAC has repeatedly accepted this alternative, it considers it to be unconceptual. Legal proceedings should always be the last resort after all other available options have been exhausted. This is primarily due to the subsidiary nature of administrative justice, which should not be the primary venue for resolving tax disputes.

If the taxpayer decides to proceed by the second option, the lawsuit must be supported by arguments that the tax authorities's decision is unlawful. Merely expressing disagreement with the amount of tax assessed may lead to the rejection of the lawsuit. [2]

If you have any questions, please contact the authors of the article or the EY tax team you are working with.

Authors:

Radek Matuštík

Karolína Moškořová

[1] Decision of the Supreme Administrative Court No. 1 Afs 100/2024-31

[2] Decision of the Supreme Administrative Court No. 1 Afs 60/2024-36