- No costs are imposed in cassation, each party pays costs of the instance as previously determined.
- Supreme Court bases decision on legal arguments:
- Firmness of the agreement act:
- Article 156 of the LGT states facts accepted in an agreement act are presumed true, reviewed only if error of fact is proven.
- Europroperty voluntarily accepted in the 2011 act that the property acquired in 2009 was unrelated to its activity, excluding VAT deduction.
- Procedures for challenging firm settlements:
- Only way to challenge a settlement arising from an agreement act is to prove an error of fact or an error in the application of the law, which has not been demonstrated.
- Company did not use appropriate channels of review (nullity, error of fact, extraordinary review appeal).
- Doctrine of the principle of full regularization:
- Principle of full regularization is not applicable when there has already been a prior procedure that has determined the inadmissibility of the deduction.
- CJEU has recognized in several cases that the regularization of VAT must guarantee the neutrality of the tax, but only if there is no firm act that prevents it.
- Principle of legal certainty and the firmness of administrative acts take precedence over full regularization in this case.
- Supreme Court rejects the possibility of applying the principle of full regularization because the VAT deduction was previously denied in a 2011 agreement act, resulting in a firm settlement. This firmness prevents the taxpayer from now trying to deduct the VAT in a subsequent settlement.
Source: taxes.gov.az
Note that this post was (partially) written with the help of AI. It is always useful to review the original source material, and where needed to obtain (local) advice from a specialist.
