Post by joita9865 on Oct 26, 2023 4:14:21 GMT
Unfortunately, the laws do not define when a given position can be said to be dominant, whether, for example, it is enough for % of interpretations within the same issue, or whether, for example, % must support a given position. When the office does not agree with established interpretative practice It may happen that a given authority, e.g. the tax office, will decide the case differently, even though the taxpayer used established interpretative practice, i.e. followed the dominant position of the tax office in the issued individual interpretations.
In the above situation, Art. comes to the rescue. of the Entrepreneurs' Law, which states that "The authority philippines photo editor shall not, without justified reasons, depart from the established practice of resolving cases in the same factual and legal situation." Article will also be helpful. of the Tax Ordinance, which in § states that "tax proceedings should be conducted in a way that inspires confidence in the tax authorities." And § indicates that "tax authorities in tax proceedings are obliged to provide the necessary information and explanations about the provisions of tax law related to the subject of these proceedings.
In practice, the above means that a tax authority that questions the correctness of compliance by an entrepreneur taxpayer, insured person based on established interpretive practice should indicate that either the actual states of such interpretations differ significantly or explain why it is now changing this position despite the identity of these states.
In the above situation, Art. comes to the rescue. of the Entrepreneurs' Law, which states that "The authority philippines photo editor shall not, without justified reasons, depart from the established practice of resolving cases in the same factual and legal situation." Article will also be helpful. of the Tax Ordinance, which in § states that "tax proceedings should be conducted in a way that inspires confidence in the tax authorities." And § indicates that "tax authorities in tax proceedings are obliged to provide the necessary information and explanations about the provisions of tax law related to the subject of these proceedings.
In practice, the above means that a tax authority that questions the correctness of compliance by an entrepreneur taxpayer, insured person based on established interpretive practice should indicate that either the actual states of such interpretations differ significantly or explain why it is now changing this position despite the identity of these states.