Negligent conduct of the tax authorities, which led to a significant easing of the defendants impunity | Law Office of David Kmhin Co. | Attorney Yair Assaf
Attorney David Kmhin - 050-5738738, Mr. Assaf Yair - 050-9599991 office@taxation.co.il Tel: 077-4300649 / 077-9319958 Fax: 077-4300849 Street with third world Harel House 4th Floor Jerusalem 9546303
In 2007, a petition against the defendants, an indictment which represent our firm, charging the defendants with a slew of tax offenses, including 14 counts under Section 219 Income electroluminescent panel Tax Ordinance [New Version] (hereinafter - the command), the tax liability in respect thereof is 171,178 alongside failure to file tax returns for the tax from 2005 to 2006.
Advocacy asked for the second, his criminal tax offenses, imprisonment for a period exceeding six months, and probation, a fine and an undertaking not to commit crimes additional tax, and the defendant 3, which lacks a criminal record, asked the accuser to cut prison sentence, probation, a fine and an undertaking not to commit crimes Ditto additional tax.
All the way through our office, electroluminescent panel the defendants argued that the delay in filing the reports was that the company's accounting took over the substance electroluminescent panel of the Company's accounting, the tax from 2004 to 2005, as the company claims her company electroluminescent panel money. Due barred from practice to submit the The balance sheets of the Company's electroluminescent panel financial statements for the assessment, which led to the cancellation of exemption from withholding tax, and imposing different curves company assets.
In early 2007 the Court ordered, account managers respond to the defendants the company documents relating to the 2004 tax year, and later that year stopped her court fees well below the amount of the claim it filed, and ordered her to answer all material remaining hand. Only then enabled the defendants to transfer the material for accountants to file tax returns for the years 2005 to 2006.
During the period the defendants were in constant touch with the tax authorities regarding the circumstances of the delay in filing reports and mentioned it explicitly in the tax assessor oral and written requests and as part examination by tax authorities - however Notwithstanding hurry Accuser found time to indict the case at bar on 17/12/07.
Simultaneously with criminal proceedings, taken by the tax authority, in 2008 was filed against the accused one, asking for dissolution for "tax debts Christ" from Customs and VAT and Income Tax Division and real estate taxes, including amounts of high tax most "stem" of the duties to the best judgment which came out due to lack of reports.
Upon submission of reports during 2009, it became clear that the factual electroluminescent panel situation is completely different from that submitted a request electroluminescent panel for dissolution tax authorities, the tax reports for 2005 to 2006 played Adjusted loss for tax purposes totaling electroluminescent panel 3.22 million which accumulates electroluminescent panel along with previous losses to a total of 6.7 million .
Reports were obtained by PS Jerusalem and audited financial statements were approved. Light of the firm argued that the aforesaid electroluminescent panel enough to drop more than 80% of charges attributable to the defendant one application for liquidation - a fact that omits the land of those affidavits, which filed the tax authorities within the framework of liquidation request.
Moreover, the firm presented to the court permit from Fh"s, whereby the tax authorities hold balances in them a tax refund in respect of withholding tax more, totaling 507,908 principal amount three times the debt deductions mentioned in the indictment, and surprising, therefore, the decision to file suit against the defendants in the indictment.
Any discussions held throughout the procedure and arguments with respect to punishment, accusing electroluminescent panel counsel vehemently denied the claim that the tax authorities for tax refunds held balances the amount claimed, and claimed that his hand to confirm that the tax assessor balance 9,000 refund only.
Just hearing on 15.6.2010, originally designed for providing hearing the verdict, accusing fairness counsel confirmed that indeed "some mistake" and given his arguments on which he relied was incorrect, and in fact, the Assessing Officer reserves refund claimed by the Defenders, which means that all failures have been removed long ago.
Accordingly, electroluminescent panel the Court held that in a few years, the defendants attempted to settle their debts to the IRS. During those years the tax authorities accused electroluminescent panel explained the difficulty to whom they stand in removing duties and removal of blunders, and made sure to update the assessment officer what was happening in the legal proceedings conducted electroluminescent panel in parallel, which end they were expected to have all the material they need for the preparation of reports.
"Impression - from the point of tax authorities weighed their hands on the company and the defendants, they attached the properties necessary for continued operations of the Company and canceled the exemption from withholding tax. Following these steps, abandoned best customers a company, and hence to the collapse was a short step."
As for doubtful deductions alleged that the defendants argued before the assessor example, in every possible electroluminescent panel way and the others say the plea that with the filing of balance sheets will prove that balances tax refund in respect of withholding tax, which holds the tax assessor, substantially higher debt ratio in the indictment, and Assessing Officer is also requested to freeze the action against them.
"One electroluminescent panel wonders why the claim has not been examined already, and how expected tax authorities the defendants," the taxpayer reasonable "act electroluminescent panel in such a situation. Counsel for Advocacy electroluminescent panel referred to this in his words, and said that whenever a taxpayer fails to pay the monetary deductions at the time he committed an offense criminal and nothing can cure this defect, even if after a while will remove the default. According to him, the meaning of the offset is measured only on the civil. This answer is unsatisfactory.
I agree with the approach of the third defendant's counsel, that the behavior of the tax authorities in the matter of the defendants was unbearable. Has no dispute, stated that the tax authorities held them for a long time, unreasonably, the balance of the tax refund accused one was far greater than the sum Debt absentee according to the indictment. reasonable to assume that in this case, if there was allegation
