The taxman caught him in custody. He had no way to defend himself and he got a penalty anyway
The tax office did not mind that the man was arrested and had no way to defend himself. The tax authorities imposed a penalty on him anyway. The case was taken up by the court.
More text below the video
An interesting case is described by Rzeczpospolita. The Tax Office started proceedings against the man who was in custody. The accused, as he himself claims, was not able to read the evidence. He also did not have an attorney who could represent him. The tax office didn’t care and he imposed a fine on the man. The case was taken up by the court.
The taxman even caught him in custody
When the man was arrested, PLN 1.5 million was confiscated from him, which was confirmed in an appropriate report. During the explanation, the accused admitted that PLN 200,000. PLN of this amount comes from his parents-in-law. It was supposed to be a form of investment assistance. The tax office accepted these explanations and PLN 200,000. excluded undisclosed sources from the proceedings. At the same time, he initiated other proceedings.
The new proceedings concerned the determination of the tax on civil law transactions (PCC) on an irregular deposit agreement. During the proceedings, the officials found that the man had his father-in-law’s funds at his disposal and therefore he should be entitled to PLN 200,000. PLN to pay tax of 20%. PCC rates, i.e. PLN 40,000 zloty.
The man, who was in the hospital ward of the detention center, claimed that he had not had a chance to read the evidence. He was also unable to appoint an attorney to represent him in tax proceedings. Moreover, the Tax Office did not send him copies of the documents or contact him to clarify the matter. In turn, the tax office also claimed that he had completed all the formalities, and the man had 7 days to express his opinion on the matter and that hiding behind arrest had nothing to do with it.
The case was brought to the Provincial Administrative Court. The judge concluded that there is a gap in the regulations that applies to arrested persons who are subject to tax proceedings. It was decided that the conduct of the Tax Office was not correct. Moreover, the court found that the tax office’s action was intentional and based on a preconceived thesis.
