Badly addressed letter to the office

Service-Tax

When preparing any letter to the office, the taxpayer is obliged to pay special attention to sending his document to the competent tax authority. Sometimes it happens that a timely matter contained in one application requires investigation by several institutions. Does a mistake, and thus failure to deliver a letter to the appropriate office within the required time limit, have serious consequences for the taxpayer?

The office will not forward it

Many taxpayers, when referring a complex case to the office (e.g. an appeal against a decision of the tax inspection office together with a letter for payment of tax arrears into installments), wrongly assume that if the authority to which the documents were addressed is not able to consider all its aspects, the documents will be automatically forwarded to the appropriate institution. Nothing could be more wrong.

Art. 168 of the Tax Ordinance (hereinafter: the tax ordinance) does not exclude the possibility of formulating more than one request in one procedural letter. Moreover, Art. 171 AC it even allows for the situation of including several matters in one document, but at the same time specifies the procedure in the event that a taxpayer submits a letter not where it should have been.

Pursuant to Art. 171 AC if the application (letter, complaint, appeal) concerns several matters to be dealt with by various authorities, the tax authority to which the application was submitted examines the matter that belongs to its jurisdiction. At the same time, this authority is obliged to notify the person submitting the application that in other cases it should submit a separate application to the competent authority.

What consequences for the taxpayer?

In a situation where the taxpayer receives the said notification, he has 14 days from its delivery to deliver the application to the competent authority. Following the office's instructions within the specified period guarantees the taxpayer that these documents will be treated as if they had been submitted on the day the first application was filed. It should also be emphasized here that it does not have the effect of shortening the time limits for settling a case in tax proceedings.

The above rule results directly from Art. 66 par. 2 of the Code of Administrative Procedure.

Example 1.

On January 15, 2014, Mr. Jan submitted an application to spread the tax arrears in installments resulting from the decision of the director of the tax inspection office of January 8, 2014. The taxpayer received this decision on January 9, 2014. The submitted application was also accompanied by an appeal against the said decision. Mr. Jan was informed that in the case of an appeal against the decision of the tax control office, a separate letter should be submitted to the director of the tax chamber through the director of the tax control office. Mr. Jan submitted the appeal to the competent office on January 17, 2014, so on time, as he received the decision on January 9.

Unidentified competent authority

In certain situations, the tax office will return a badly addressed letter to the taxpayer. This will happen when (Art.171 § 3 GDPR):

  • the authority to which they were lodged is inappropriate, and the competent authority cannot be determined on the basis of the information contained in the application,

  • the application shows that the court has jurisdiction in this case.

This return is in the form of a decision that can be appealed (which can be filed within 7 days of receiving the decision).