Sanctions of up to 600,000 euros for businessmen or freelancers who obstruct the investigation inspectors It is constitutional not to provide treasury, accounting books, or enter farms or buildings. This issue was resolved at the general assembly meeting. Constitutional Court 203.6 of the Constitution of the Supreme Court. In a decision rejecting the question of unconstitutionality raised by Article General Tax Law It was amended by the law of October 2012 to combat tax evasion. The Constitutional Court concluded that “despite the gravity of the sanctions, there was no clear and excessive or unreasonable imbalance between the sanction and the purpose of the rule. .
this State Association of Tax Inspectors “Satisfied that the Constitutional Court has upheld existing regulations regarding sanctions in the event of resisting audit action, and particularly refusal to provide accounting books and supporting documents in the most serious event of activity”. According to this professional association, “this judgment Provides legal certainty In case of sanctions for businessmen’s resistance to their refusal to settle their accounts. If these violations are decided by the court, the possible dispute is deemed to be resolved with this decision of the Constitutional Court.
203.6 of the General Tax Code questioned by the Supreme Court. item, resist, hinder, excuse, or refuse If it is committed by a subject engaged in economic activity and subject to the inspection procedure, it is punished with a “partial fine” for the actions of the Tax Administration. 2% of turnover corresponding to the last financial year for which the declaration period expires on the date of the violation, at least 20,000 euro and maximum 600,000 euros”. This sanction applies exclusively to obstructive behavior relating to “contribution or review of accounting books, tax records, files, programs, operating and control systems” or a breach of the obligation to “facilitate entry or permanence on farms”. installations” or “recognition of elements or installations”.
In particular, the Almighty had brought up the possible incompatibility of this item. principle of proportionality from sanctions. Suspicions only affected the single sanction of €600,000, which would have resulted from the rule being applied to situations where the employer offered a very high annual turnover. Neither the type of offender nor the minimum limit of sanction were questioned.
The constitutional provision emphasizes that the sanction applies only to the information or specific accounting data specified in other provisions, where information not provided by the offender to tax inspection refers to business accounting in a broad sense. A lower sanction than the press release issued by the Supreme Court. It also emphasizes that the behavior must be carried out by a subject engaged in economic activity and is also subject to the tax examination procedure.
The decision was accepted by the majority of votes in the general assembly of the Constitutional Court. They announced a special vote against the magistrate Henry Arnold and magistrate mirror concept.