Post by amina147 on Mar 6, 2024 2:19:13 GMT -5
If companies and non-legal entities have the statuses listed in the Law such as legal representation board membership and administrative authority and these taxpayers do not meet the guarantee amount stipulated in the article the said amount is accrued as a guarantee receivable the accrued guarantee receivable is subject to delay. It is envisaged that the surcharge will be followed and collected from the relevant taxpayers. Application Reason In summary of the application decisions; The guarantee is a measure aimed at securing public receivables it is not a public receivable for the administration if it is not paid the relevant person may not be able to benefit from the transaction based.
On the guarantee but if the guarantee is not deposited the guarantee amount will be followed as a finalized public receivable in accordance with the Law on the Collection Procedure of Public Receivables AATUHK. and should not be collected the rules in question state that the guarantee is described as a public receivable and that it is allowed to be pursued Austria Phone Numbers List and collected by accruing it this situation is contrary to the principle of legal security and furthermore allowing the accrual and follow-up of a non-existent public receivable causes an unreasonable limitation of the property right. It was claimed that the rules were contrary to the Constitution. Court's Evaluation of the Dispute Subject to the Decision In the decision it was stated that the contested rules constitute a limitation on the right to property and firstly Article of the Constitution.
According to the article it has been concluded that the right to property can only be limited by law and since the limitation stipulated by the rules is specific accessible and predictable the rules meet the requirement of legality in this respect. On the other hand Article of the Constitution states that fundamental rights and freedoms can only be limited based on the reasons specified in the relevant articles of the Constitution and Article of the Constitution stipulates that the right to property can be limited for the purpose of public interest persons who were determined to have committed the act of issuing false documents through a report prepared by those authorized to conduct tax audits continue to commit the same acts by establishing a different liability or taking over a business that has a liability record after the tax office cancels the taxpayer registration they established for the purpose of issuing fake invoices.
On the guarantee but if the guarantee is not deposited the guarantee amount will be followed as a finalized public receivable in accordance with the Law on the Collection Procedure of Public Receivables AATUHK. and should not be collected the rules in question state that the guarantee is described as a public receivable and that it is allowed to be pursued Austria Phone Numbers List and collected by accruing it this situation is contrary to the principle of legal security and furthermore allowing the accrual and follow-up of a non-existent public receivable causes an unreasonable limitation of the property right. It was claimed that the rules were contrary to the Constitution. Court's Evaluation of the Dispute Subject to the Decision In the decision it was stated that the contested rules constitute a limitation on the right to property and firstly Article of the Constitution.
According to the article it has been concluded that the right to property can only be limited by law and since the limitation stipulated by the rules is specific accessible and predictable the rules meet the requirement of legality in this respect. On the other hand Article of the Constitution states that fundamental rights and freedoms can only be limited based on the reasons specified in the relevant articles of the Constitution and Article of the Constitution stipulates that the right to property can be limited for the purpose of public interest persons who were determined to have committed the act of issuing false documents through a report prepared by those authorized to conduct tax audits continue to commit the same acts by establishing a different liability or taking over a business that has a liability record after the tax office cancels the taxpayer registration they established for the purpose of issuing fake invoices.