commission

by admin11

Esterovestizione, request vat how to behave in a petition for assessment

5:57 at the in ADVOCATE OF REVENUE AGENCY, ATTORNEY ESTEROVESTIZIONE, TAX LAWYER by admin11

In my petition for assessment, after various researches will insert this text:

 

Given that:

The Law 427/1993 Italy has transposed the EU Directives that set the ground rules for the VAT harmonization at Community.

For intra-Community acquisitions made in Italy, the tax debtor is the purchaser of the taxable; VAT is payable in the country of destination of goods .

 

All customers of XXXXX for the year then have 2008 and 2009 already paid the tax rate and then you would incur a double taxation of VAT.

 

The’Italy and other EEC countries have adopted this principle for years 2008 and 2009 in which it was required to pay VAT to the company XXXXX , pursuant to Article. 38 DL n. 331/1983

 

The double application of VAT is also violating the Convention between Italian Republic and the Slovak Republic for the Avoidance of Double Taxation with Respect to Taxes on Income with Protocol Prague 5 May 1981

 

The double application of VAT law also violates the agreement between the Italian Republic and the European Union. Trade between these countries are in fact covered by Community legislation (Articles 49 and ss. TFEU) which has been gradually implemented by the States Parties to the European Union. In Italian, particularly, was issued D.L. 30.8.1993 No 331, converted by Law No. 427 of 29 October 1993.

 

The double application of VAT and the "modus operandi" of the Inland Revenue has already been denounced by the Commission to examine the compatibility of Community legislation and tax practices of the Italian 'AIDC who complained to the EU Commission of illegality in Community stressing that 'Esterovestizione the debate between Treasury and the taxpayer has a "physiologic" imbalance between official, a strong prima facie, and taxpayer, who bears the burden of, often difficult, True Crime.

 

Given all this:

 

The company requires XXXXX therefore not having to pay the VAT to the Italian state for the second time since it was already intermante paid by its customers and if this instance is not accepted by your office we will expose the litigation before the Tax Commission, body responsible for levying the Slovak DPH (which is the Italian equivalent of VAT) and community level to the EU Commission of Unlawful Community and the European Court of Human Rights.

Join the Forum discussion on this post

by admin11

ESTEROVESTIZIONE, Reggio Emilia, MAX MARA, THE FISCAL LOSES CASE

8:14 at the in ADVOCATE OF REVENUE AGENCY, ATTORNEY ESTEROVESTIZIONE, TAX LAWYER by admin11

The Tax
cause perde
A Maramotti go
50mila euro

The Internal Revenue Service asked the owner of Max Mara 45 million in penalties and alleged tax evaded, but the Tax Commission has accepted the appeal of the entrepreneur

 
Luigi Maramotti (Foto Artioli)
Luigi Maramotti (Photo Artioli)
 
 

Reggio Emilia, 22 January 2010. The IRS wanted Luigi Maramotti 45 million, between sanctions and alleged tax evaded, but eventually he will have to pay 50 thousand euros entrepreneur.

And 'what it cost the Agency revenue, including fees for lawyers and rights, The action brought by the owner of Max Mara, who had to defend accusations of tax evasion.

The section 4 of the Committee provincial tax has in fact received, July 1 last, The action brought by the owner of Max Mara, who had been accused of evading 23 million in corporate income taxes between, IRES and IRAP, in the years between 2003 and the 2006.

A Maramotti Agency Revenue also asked 22 million penalties. Throughout 45 million.

According to the Finance and the Inland Revenue was found that, checks from Marina Rinaldi, they would have found evidence to support the International fashion trading company, with branch offices in Lugano and the homonymous Luxembourg company owned 46% the Max Mara Finance, was in fact a dependence of the cheese.

This, second the Inland Revenue, would have been sufficient to configure the presence of a company esterovestita, which is used only to pay less tax.

But the committee tax has literally taken apart the prosecution's. We read in the judgment: "The Board shall set aside the notice of assessment for absolute uncertainty as to the identity (legal, composition, headquarters, representation), the identification and existence of the autonomous subject of rights, central charge of negotiating situations and procedural issues which were supposed to head the tax obligations established ".

In essence, the Board argued that it was not possible to "determine what type of income tax was applicable (personal income or corporation tax)"And that, also, Luigi Maramotti was impossible to determine which was the legal representative, given that "not one of the numerous documents bore his signature".

Also, as regards the alleged esterovestizione, The Committee notes that "no other evidence has been provided in order to verify and demonstrate that the actual seat of the International fashion trading was in Italy┬╗.

Adds the Board: "Even the reasons that tax, according to the office would have led to the creation of the branch confederated Ift, does not appear reliable '. And more: the purpose of relocating the revenue in a territory that has a favorable tax regime than the national "do not appear demonstrated".

The documentation by the applicants, in fact, the Lugano branch "appears to have been subject to tax in Switzerland in the ordinary regime, also the same has never resorted to procedures ruling the Helvetic confederation, and has not received any forfeiture of income '.

As a result of all these observations, The Committee 'declares the nullity and the absolute ineffectiveness of the notification of the investigation carried out by Luigi Maramotti for lack of legitimation and representation powers of taxable bonds unidentified tax assessed ".
The story may not end here because the Inland Revenue has until mid-March to appeal.

The 3 March, then, Judge preliminary hearing, Baraldi Angela, decide on a possible indictment for Luigi Maramotti, patron of Max Mara, who was accused by the prosecutor in Reggio declaration of tax evasion for failing to.

Targeted by the Guardia di Finanza there are amounts that would be dealt with between the 2003 and the 2006. The criminal investigation against Maramotti and tax last year are very similar, but it may not even cover the same topic.

Join the Forum discussion on this post