Sanctions of up to 600,000 euros can be imposed on businessmen or freelancers who obstruct tax inspectors during an investigation. It is constitutional for authorities not to provide treasury records, accounting books, or to enter farms or buildings when required by the audit process. This point was resolved during the general assembly meeting and is grounded in Article 203.6 of the Constitution and the Supreme Court’s interpretation. In a ruling that rejected a challenge to the constitutionality raised under the General Tax Law, the provision was reaffirmed after amendments in October 2012 aimed at curbing tax evasion. The Constitutional Court concluded that despite the severity of the sanctions, there was no clear and excessive or unreasonable imbalance between the punishment and the rule’s purpose.
The State Association of Tax Inspectors welcomed the Constitutional Court’s reaffirmation of the existing regulations regarding sanctions for resisting an audit, especially refusals to provide accounting books and supporting documents in the most serious cases of activity. This association noted that the ruling provides legal certainty in cases where businesspeople refuse to settle their accounts. If these violations are adjudicated by the courts, the dispute is effectively resolved through the Constitutional Court’s decision.
Article 203.6 of the General Tax Code was questioned by the Supreme Court. The statute states that resistance, hindrance, evasion, or refusal by a person engaged in economic activity who is subject to inspection results in a partial fine. The fine ranges from 2 percent of the turnover of the last financial year for which the declaration period expires on the date of the violation, to a minimum of 20,000 euros and a maximum of 600,000 euros. The sanction targets obstructive behavior related to the provision or review of accounting books, tax records, files, programs, operating and control systems, or a breach of the obligation to facilitate entry or permane nce on farms, installations, or recognition of elements or installations.
In this context, concerns were raised about potential proportionality issues in the application of the sanction. Critics noted that a uniform 600,000 euro cap could be disproportionate in cases of very high annual turnover, though neither the offender type nor the minimum cap was challenged in theory. The constitutional provision emphasizes that the sanction applies only to the information or specific accounting data required by other provisions, and that information not provided by the offender to the tax inspection refers to business accounting in a broad sense. The language suggests a lower sanction than some initial press interpretations and underscores that the conduct must involve a subject engaged in economic activity who is subject to the tax examination procedure.
The decision gained majority support in the Constitutional Court’s general assembly. A minority position was expressed by magistrates Henry Arnold and Mirror Concept, who objected to parts of the majority view. The ruling clarifies that the sanctions operate within the framework of the stated legal provisions and are directed at the most critical instances of resistance to tax oversight, rather than as a blanket penalty for any administrative delay.