Source: https://www.profinfo.pl/sklep/przeglad-podatkowy,7373,r,2014,nr,1.html
Timestamp: 2020-07-12 07:46:15
Document Index: 244310047

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 9', 'Art. 25', 'Art. 19', 'Art. 9', 'Art. 30', 'Art. 25']

Przegląd Podatkowy - Nr 1/2014 [273] (Druk, PDF) - Profinfo.pl
Kod towaru: KIK-6502 201401
Zmiany przepisów ustaw o podatku dochodowym od 1 stycznia 2014 r. str. 9
Kilka refleksji na
Amendments to provisions of income tax acts from 1 January 2014 p. 9
Amendments to provisions of income tax acts from 1 January 2014
Several thoughts one month before the Fourth National Congress of Tax Advisers
Exemption of second-hand goods from VAT
DISSTENTING OPINIONS
When is making a built-in wardrobe taxable at reduced rate?
Transfer pricing documentation as an element of tax proceedings
Unlawful rendition of a decision to be immediately enforceable and interruption of the running of period of limitation - change in case law of the Supreme Administrative Court
The amendments to income tax acts which entered into force on 1 January 2014 concern mainly registered joint-stock partnerships [SKA], which became entities within the meaning of tax laws and CIT payers. The consequence of these amendments is a change of the set of terms and the need to harmonize the provisions with the new terminology. This article focuses on the key elements of amendments: changes concerning taxation of a registered joint-stock partnership and its partners, transitional provisions and the new set of terms.
The purpose of this article it to identify the scope to which provisions of the Act of 11 March 2004 on Value Added Tax ['VAT Act'] regulating VAT exemption for supplies of goods to which the right to tax deduction did not apply may be considered incompatible to the provisions of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax ['Directive 2006/112']. The authors analyse both the provisions of VAT Act which were in force in the period from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2013 and the new provisions regulating the issue, which took effect on 1 January 2014, pursuant to the Act of 7 December 2012 on Amendments to the Act on Value Added Tax and Certain Other Acts. In the final part of the article, the authors outline the potential consequences of incompatibility of the aforementioned provisions with the provisions of Directive 2006/112.
Continuing the series of commentaries on dissenting opinions, which were submitted to judgments of administrative courts or to resolutions issued by the Supreme Administrative Court, this time we present a commentary on SAC resolution of 25 June 2013. It should be explained that the resolution issued by the NSA concerned VAT rate on the comprehensive service involving design, fitting and assembly of furniture components made from the contractor's own materials (the so-called permanently built-in furniture) in buildings covered by social residential construction programme.
The subject-matter of this article is the documentation duty referred to in Art. 9a of the Act of 15 February 1992 on Corporate Income Tax ['CIT Act'] and Art. 25a of the Act of 26 July 1991 on Personal Income Tax ['PIT Act']. These provisions specify the triggers of this duty, the contents of documentation and the consequences of failure to submit it within 7 days of the service of request by the tax authority (50% rate of tax on income assessed in accordance with the provisions on transfer pricing above the amount declared by the taxpayer - Art. 19(4) in conjunction with Art. 9a(4) CIT Act, Art. 30d(1) in conjunction with Art. 25a(4) of PIT Act). However, they do not regulate: (i) the moment when such documentation should be prepared, (ii) the procedure of submitting it, (iii) criteria for assessment whether the document submitted by the taxpayer meets the statutory requirements and (iv) the evidentiary function when estimating income in the field of transfer pricing. These problems were analysis in detail from the point of view of the structure and objectives of procedures as part of which the documentation duty is discharged (first of all the procedure of tax proceedings).
The judgment commented on concerns the effects of setting aside immediate enforceability of a decision on interruption of the running of a period of limitation in connection with enforcement measures having been applied before said decision. The Supreme Administrative Court held that setting aside the immediate enforceability of a decision means that the running of the period of limitation is not interrupted. The author shares this standpoint. The judgment has the character of a precedent, as it is a breakthrough in the established line of case law.