Summary
After an overall concrete assessment, the National Tax Court found that the complainant personally, and not an association, in accordance with the VAT Act, section 3, subsection. 1, had run an independent financial business with games and cafeteria in the period 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2012. The National Tax Court found that the complainant had not achieved a legally protected expectation that the company should be attributed to the association already because it had not been reimbursed, that SKAT had given a positive and unambiguous statement in this regard. SKAT’s post-clearance collection of VAT from the complainant was therefore justified.
With reference to SKM2003.4.HR , the National Tax Court further found that the Supreme Court had ruled that the complainant’s business with games was not exempt from VAT pursuant to section 13 (1) of the VAT Act. 1, no. 12, on “lotteries and the like.”
The National Tax Court agreed with SKAT that the complainant, in accordance with the Tax Administration Act, section 32, subsection 1, no. 3, had at least grossly negligently caused his VAT liability to be determined on an incorrect basis, as it was in fact the complainant and not the association that ran the company.
As regards the notification deadline in the Tax Administration Act, section 32, subsection 2, 1st sentence, the National Tax Court stated that SKAT on 13 March 2013 received six moving boxes containing approx. 57 ring binders with the association’s accounting material for the years 2008 to 2011. In addition, on 28 June 2013, SKAT received 12 ring binders with the accounting material for 2012. The receipt of this material did not in itself give SKAT knowledge that there was a basis for extraordinary determination of tax liability for the complainant pursuant to section 32, subsection 1, no. 3. SKAT gained knowledge of this only by reviewing and assessing the extensive material and thereby found that the activities of holding games were not carried out by the association, but by the complainant personally, and that the complainant at least had grossly negligently caused, that the complainant’s VAT liability was established on an incorrect or incomplete basis. The notice period in section 32, subsection 2, 1st sentence, for the period 1 January 2008 – 30 September 2010 was therefore not exceeded when SKAT sent the affidavit on 13 November 2013.
The National Tax Court therefore upheld SKAT’s decision.
Source: skat.dk
