Quando si valuta il transfer of goods, the composition of the different bases on the single tax is not an obstacle to the exchange between the results of the investigation, verifying the measurement.
is as determined by the Supreme Court Judgement No March 2, 5078, which brings to the fore the issue never vanished and interference on connections between the findings for the purposes of registration and income taxes. The story
Revenue Agency ascertained inductively a capital gains from the sale of a business (tax year 1995, said the price of 20 million lire, price identified 900 million), using the findings of an earlier report issued by ' office del Registro.
Le ragioni della ricorrente venivano accolte dalla Ctp. In secondo grado, la Ctr confermava nel merito la sentenza, riformandone tuttavia la parte relativa alle spese di giudizio, per le quali veniva disposta compensazione.
L’Agenzia delle Entrate ricorreva in Cassazione deducendo violazione dell’articolo 54 del Tuir e vizio di motivazione, approntando una tesi difensiva che può essere così riassunta:
la plusvalenza derivante dalla cessione d’azienda è costituita dalla differenza tra prezzo di acquisto e prezzo di cessione
il prezzo di cessione corrisponde al valore dell’azienda ceduta
la ricostruzione del prezzo di cessione, avvenuta nel 1995, è stata eseguita sulla basis of a study prepared on behalf of the party in 1991 and given the values \u200b\u200bprovided by the taxpayer within the Act of Succession in 1993
reducing the company's value by more than 900 million over two years is unlikely
ascertain the use of inductive without providing further evidence becomes, therefore, legitimate
these considerations have been taken exclusively by the Ctr for court fees restate an argument with inconsistent and ineffective. The decision
After reiterating the legitimacy of the use of the values \u200b\u200bdetermined in order to register in order to check inductively the gain on disposal of business, la Corte osserva che è onere del contribuente superare la presunzione di corrispondenza tra prezzo incassato e valore di mercato accertato.
A giudizio della Cassazione, la Ctr è incorsa nella violazione di legge per non aver considerato che la contribuente non aveva assolto al proprio onere probatorio – posto che lastessa aveva, in sede di successione, indicato un valore molto distante dal prezzo di cessione – e nel vizio di motivazione, per non aver, da un lato, ritenuto, in forza di tale circostanza, legittimo il ricorso da parte dell’Agenzia all’accertamento induttivo e, dall’altro, ritenuta la stessa evenienza quale elemento idoneo a sorreggere la compensazione delle spese di giudizio.
La decisione the dispute begins with a well-established case law address to which the Court adhered to.
Earlier in not a few and run all in the same direction. In addition to those mentioned in the body of the ruling under review (the Supreme Court, Case 4914/1986, 2101/1990, 14448/2000, 14581/2001 and 21055/2005), deserve a recall other recent decisions that focus on the assessment of components starter, main point of conflict between taxpayers and tax authorities. The reference is to decisions 19830/2008, 28791/2008, 21020/2009 and 27019/2009, in which it states clearly that "... the financial administration is entitled to proceed by induction to the adjustment capital gains on the value of goodwill, realized on the sale of the company, on the basis of a value already made for the purposes of registration. The taxpayer is then asked to carry the burden of proof to the contrary also providing circumstantial evidence sufficient to rebut the presumption of correspondence of the values \u200b\u200bfound in the individual disciplines of tax .... " A warning to the taxpayer
address accredited by the Court, as well as being an accurate legal corollary, proves to be a natural and spontaneous anti-avoidance strategy. The buyer should be proud of that
savings achieved unduly on the purchase, by declaring a lower value to the real business, it can easily be objected that it did not deal well done. As it was, in fact, not only has simply postponed the tax bill to be served, but it has compounded at least two reasons. The first concerns the consequences in terms of interest and penalties arising from the investigation relating to the registry. The second is an expression of the natural order of things: who is buyer today, will sooner or later to wear the clothes of the seller. And the seller carries on its shoulders the burden of a capital gain is directly proportional to the difference between purchase price and sale. The more the gap is wide, the more the initial fall at the end of the race will be punished.
Source: Revenue Agency
0 comments:
Post a Comment