Kdy dovrší dítě 26. rok? Nejvyšší správní soud dává jasnou odpověď

At the end of May, the Supreme Administrative Court dealt with a cassation complaint from the tax administrator ("complainant"), who did not recognize the child allowance for the month in which the child celebrated its 26th birthday. The child was born on the first day of the month. The court addressed the question of whether the child reached the age of 26 precisely on its birthday or the preceding day.

The complainant believed that the tax benefit no longer applied to the plaintiff. The regional court disagreed and overturned the tax administrator's decision. The complainant filed a cassation complaint.

The main subject of the dispute was the interpretation of the phrase "until reaching the age of 26," which defines the condition for granting the tax benefit. The Supreme Administrative Court pointed out that the regional court incorrectly interpreted this phrase. According to the Supreme Administrative Court, it is not decisive whether the adult child reached the age of 26 during the given period, but whether it met the specified conditions at the beginning of the month. One of the conditions is precisely reaching the age of 26, i.e., from the moment the relevant age limit is reached, the benefit can no longer be granted.

The above means that if a person was born, for example, on March 1, they reached the age of 26 at the very beginning of that day, expressed in time at 00:00 of that day. Not a single moment of that month is therefore the time until reaching the age of 26. The assumption that the conditions for the tax benefit were met at the beginning of the month is therefore not fulfilled. According to the Supreme Administrative Court, the term "reaching" means (unless the legislator states otherwise) that reaching the given age occurs at one unique moment and not throughout the day.

The Supreme Administrative Court adds that it understands the argument of the regional court, according to which not granting the tax benefit to persons born on the first day of the month would mean that these persons would be disadvantaged. However, this approach is contrary to the time frame set by the legislator.

Although the disputed amount of the unrecognized tax benefit for one month may seem entirely trivial in relation to the plaintiff's actual tax obligation, it is necessary to appreciate the plaintiff's principled stance, thanks to which it is now judicially established at what exact moment in time a certain age limit can be considered reached for individuals. This conclusion can certainly be applicable in other situations where a specific legal fact or obligation is linked to reaching a certain age (e.g., attaining adulthood according to the Civil Code, regular medical examinations for professional drivers, etc.).

Authors:

Jan Turek

Matěj Šimpach