When we examine articles from recent years concerning VAT in the electronic industry, the texts summarizing the value of undervalued VAT, which should come to the State's cash register and not paid due to criminal-tax offences. On the one hand, can clearly see that the introduced reverse VAT mechanism has led to the calming of publishers.
Electronic product traders need to increase the level of substantive commitment to effectively fight for their rights, especially when the administrative recognition of tax authorities is too far-reaching.
However, the continued maintenance of rhetoric about the significant level of undervalued tax resulting from criminal activities has led to a significant increase in tax and tax controls in the industry, covering years prior to the introduction of statutory protective mechanisms to prevent these offences.
If there is an increase in the number of checks, there will always be a question of the quality of the controls carried out by the authorities, particularly in terms of the protection of taxpayers' rights against excessive administrative recognition and bias of evidence.
The natural control response in such a situation is increased suspicion of the operational activity of traders in the electronic products industry.
After all, the line presented in press publications will never show that everyone in the electronic industry cheats on VAT and yet the authorities controlling their behaviour will often confirm this. There are situations in which honest tax settlement industry entities become involuntary victims of tightened-up procedures.
On the one hand, to the taxpayer have been exposed to extended periods for obtaining a refund of overpaid tax, and are at present exposed to the activities of tax authorities and tax controls leading to the disqualification of the possibility of applying a reduced rate of tax on goods and services and a deduction tax.
Electronic product traders need to increase the level of substantive commitment to effectively fight for their rights, especially when the administrative recognition of tax authorities is too far-reaching.
In such a situation, it is good that the Court of Justice of the EU has confirmed by its latest ruling the need for in-depth findings confirming the taxpayer's awareness of the leap nature of the delivery to him. In the judgment of the Court of Justice (judgment of 22 October 2015, C-277/14 PPUH Stehcmp sp.j.
Florian Stefanek, Janina Stefanek, Jarosław Stefanek) considered that questioning the right to deduct VAT on sale by an entity deemed not to exist may be contrary to EU rules unless, in the light of objective findings, the taxpayer knew or should have known that the supply involved a criminal offence.
Such content of the operative part of the judgment imposes on the control authorities additional obligations entailing the need to demonstrate objectively that the counterparty is dishonest and not merely a hunch or administrative recognition that this has occurred.
Action is needed, whose nature is consistent, for example, with the content of the Supreme Administrative Court judgment in Warsaw of 7 May 2015 (Act No: I FSK 605/14) recognising that "in the context of the free assessment the limits of freedom are not exceeded, the tax authority, when assessing the evidence collected, should, inter alia, follow the principles of logic, the conformity of assessment with the laws of science and life experience, the treatment of the evidence collected as objective phenomena, the assessment of evidence solely from the point of view of their importance and value for the matter under consideration, the versatility of assessment." It is important to seek to eliminate the biased way of assessing evidence leading to a misdetermination of facts.
The role of a professional proxy, acting at the earliest possible stage of the review procedure, becomes inconspicuous, as it is objecting to the facts presented by the taxpayer.