by admin11

Agency revenue bills must show absence


Office shall be responsible to prove the nonexistence of trade invoiced

But when the expense is not regularly documented by bill, the taxpayer is required to prove that, compared to more established revenue, costs were incurred relating to the activities carried


By judgment No.. 18710 of 23/9/2005, The Supreme Court has ruled that in cases where the Office considers that the invoices are accounted for by a non-existent transactions, not for the taxpayer to prove the opposite, that is the reality of transactions billed, but to demonstrate to the tax that they have never been put in place.

The Regional Tax Commission of Palermo had legitimized the tax recovery arising from a notice of assessment with which they were disowned, inter alia, certain costs related to operations deemed non-existent.
Particularly, the finance office had argued, reasons connected with “by reference into” Minutes of a Guardia di Finanza, that the corporate structure was not suitable for the implementation of the work described in the invoices exhibited by the taxpayer.
The appeals judges, considered that the party had failed to file a technical report describing the industrial plant, which had also announced its plans to, and had not provided any evidence regarding the actual performance of the invoiced, had held that the tax could be entitled to recover loss of production of evidence to the contrary.

The Supreme Court has ruled that instead, being itself the invoice suitable instrument, pursuant to Article 21 of Dpr 26 October 1972 n. 633, to document a cost to the enterprise, “in the case of bills that the Administration considers its operations to non-existent, not for the taxpayer to prove that the operation is effective, but it is up to the Administration, argues that the falsity of the document and, then the existence of a greater tax, prove that the commercial operation, to an invoice, in fact has never been put in place“(1).

The judgment under review presents some interesting, because, if in relation to the concrete case of invoices for nonexistent transactions is reiterated that the burden of proof is borne by the tax offices, it also confirms that in principle it is the taxpayer who, if he wants to challenge the elements and situations taken to basic income adjustments, must prove the groundlessness of the same, or “support the existence of circumstances or modifying the same estintive“.
Consequently, it follows that, If the taxpayer wants to enforce the provisions of Article 109, fourth paragraph, of Tuir(2), admits that the deductibility of certain items resulting from the negative components and precise, must be able to document the existence of a higher cost than declared and / or office considered when determining the business income.

Basically, if the cost that a company wants to bring down the income is documented by an invoice dated, numbered and provided with the information required by that article 21 of Dpr 633/1972, The office is evaluating whether the elements of the tax law for the purposes of the deductibility of the cost (and possible tax deductibility), which jurisdiction, the inherent, the adequacy, but to question the effectiveness of the commercial operation to which the invoice relates, must provide evidence that the provision of services and / or disposal of assets have never been put in place. Instead, if spending is not regularly documented by bill, that can not be the same taxpayer to show that, compared to higher revenues from the office established, costs were incurred due to such year and related activities pursued.

1) The judges of legitimacy have made explicit reference to those already raised in the judgment of Cass. 5 February 1997, n. 1092, where one defines “unexceptionable” the principle that “the burden of proving the negative components of income burden on the taxpayer shows them as deductions“. Principle, however, it is considered that is not applicable in this case, deemed non-existent because the task is documented by the same invoice.

2) “The costs and expenses specifically related revenues and other income, that although not resulting expensed in its taxable income, are allowed as deductions if and to the extent that certain elements are accurate and” (Article 109, comma 4, last period, of Dpr 917/86, as amended by Decree 344/2003).

Join the Forum discussion on this post

by admin11

Inland Revenue, Criminal penalties for tax evasion, false invoices, omitted tax return

2:05 pm in TAX LAWYER by admin11

Criminal penalties for tax evasion, false invoices, omitted tax return and other
- tassefisco
Written on 27 September 2011 in Society and Income | 0 Comments
After talking about tax evasion and tax avoidance we speak of the possible penalties in the tax law that could happen not only as a result of misconduct but also as a result of errors in the compilation of the statement false or to have ordered sanctions but also in other situations that may .

When taking the penalty for offenses involving tax
The penalty takes the occurrence of certain events in relation to offenses which are distinguished by the quality or the quality of the offense and may include the issuing of false invoices, costs for non-existent in order to qualify for tax relief or to reduce the income tax or personal income tax IRES.

Who is liable for criminal tax offenses company
For companies meet the organization's legal, Administrators only, consilgio president of administration and those who are provided with specific powers to carry out their manzioni and found to be clear in the statement of income. Needless to say that during the investigation will be to investigate who is the owner of this company and if there are any nominees or blockheads.

The issuing of false invoices or above or below their real value
If you as the insane idea of ​​making false invoices or sovraffatturare some services separately sconsigliarvelo strongly as contrary to law tell you that in case of false invoices, relating to transactions that do not exist are not even provided the quantitative limits, I pecked a direct penalty; For this reason, even just a false bill of a dollar and you are considered a criminal offense. The sanctions in this case ranging from six months to two years imprisonment and provided the invoice value is less than 154.937 euro ( the old 300 million pounds).
If the invoice value exceeds the limit of the old 300 million as a penalty, then there is a period of imprisonment that can range from 18 months to six years.

Failure to submit a tax return or false statement
However, the penalty not only for shooting situations such as these but only for failing to submit a tax return if the tax evaded is more than 77.468 euro (the old 150 million pounds) and provides a period of imprisonment from one year to three anni.La worst part is that in case of failure to submit income tax return will be determined by the auditors or financial guard according to the reconstruction of accounting based on the documentation and found . However with the new Maneuver Economy 2011 this limit drops to 30 thousand euros, while in case of submission of a misrepresentation down to the limit 50 mila euro.

Failure to pay withholding taxes and VAT
A few years ago has created quite a stir among insiders the introduction of the criminal offense committed with failure to pay withholding taxes for amounts certified to upper 50 mila euro. The sentence in this case can vary from 6 months to two years. The same applies to the VAT. In this case you must pay attention to the timing provided by the legislature are as stringent: I mean that in this case, the penalty can shoot directly account the day after the due date of payment of the tax due on the year following that of non-payment.

Fraudulent Declaration
Here we move into the area where the intent is an element more pronounced as we speak of false statement, falsification, tampering with records false reports of fire or sudden destruction of server and PC, misappropriation of company assets and other conduct designed to reduce taxable income. If you have curiosity, try reading some sentences at random and you will find all, sudden explosion of computer, theft of books (but who is going to steal a book I say inventories). The penalty in this case is triggered when the declaration determines fraudulent evasion of tax of more than 77.468 Assets of euro and subtraction than 1.549.370 or 5% of the total.
In this case, the legislature provides for a tightening of punishment as the penalty provides for a period running from 18 months and can reach up to 6 age. With the new economic package 2011 Furthermore it is envisaged that in the case of tax evasion processed higher than the 3 million and more of the 30% turnover taxes will not be eligible for the conditional.
The offense as well as being characterized by the specific intent by building an apparatus that allows documents to indicate the tax return with different components or sottovolautazione overstatement of assets or liabilities is consumed by fraudulent misrepresentation or the formation of invoices or other .

Penalties The penalties to those
If you're not a saint and shins were committing irregularities do not know how you can affect the accessory penalties provided for offenses in criminal tax law, but for consistency of information someone might be interested, therefore, in addition to possible jail and detention can run in most cases , or the inability to contract with the government for a period not less than one year and not more than three years, disqualification from providing representation and assistance in tax matters for a period not less than one year and not more than five years, or even permanent exclusion from the office component of the tax commission.

IRAP is not covered by these profiles are theoretically
In theory, though it may seem like a provocation of an offense related to those described above when referring IRAP, would not have raised in criminal, at least in theory since IRAP is not a tax on income but on the production while the tax offenses are intended to income tax and VAT. Obviously this is only valid in theory and you should never pay IRAP from tomorrow.
In the next article you can also read the terms of the limitation related to some sanzionatarie both administrative and criminal cases are not related only to tax assessments and that the new economic package 2011 have been modified.

Join the Forum discussion on this post

by admin11



The Italian state has accused me of esterovestizione and forces me to pay VAT on the invoices for the year 2008 and 2009. For the year 2008 Having regard to the turnover should give more 100.000 Euro VAT on Italian clients but I quell'IVA I did not recessed. It’ Constitutional and proper for me to ask. Also seen because the amount is considered a criminal offense! Thank you for your help.