The notifications Y claims tributary that remits Estate Taxpayers can be without effect if the administration breaks the acquired habit of notifying the interested party by sending an alert email. This was just ruled by the Superior Court of Justice of Catalonia in a ruling that promises to give an additional margin of action to thousands of taxpayers to whom the Tax Agency has imposed charges without duly notifying it.
The judicial ruling is about an official virtual mailbox from which the Treasury is often used to send taxpayers their notifications. It's about the call Electronic Address Enabled (DEH), which is mandatory for certain groups, mainly companies. Once deposited in the DEH, these communications are notified to the taxpayer within the term of 10 days, although this has not accessed in that time to the virtual mailbox.
To give additional guarantees, the administration allows those interested to also register an email to which a notice is sent when there are new notifications in the DEH. Hacienda was defending that it is not obliged to make this additional communication so if the system fails and the notice is not sent to the taxpayer's mail, the notification was considered valid after the aforementioned 10 days, limiting, for example, the effective term to appeal.
Recently, also, the Court Constitutional has stated, with regard to the notifications sent by Lexnet, that the failure to send the email does not violate the right to effective judicial protection. And that's where the recent one comes into play judgment of the high court of Catalonia.
The ruling affects a construction company to which the Treasury sent aeconomic-administrative statement through the DEH in May 2015 demanding a payment corresponding to the liquidation of the Corporation tax of the year 2011, but without notifying him by mail as he used to.
The court has ruled that although Hacienda does not have the obligation to send an email to the taxpayer warning him that there is a tax notice pending review in the DEH, the fact that he has been sending it regularly on previous occasions does commit him to continue doing so under the "Principle of legitimate trust", that also defends the Constitutional.
"That legitimate trust motivated the obligor not to enter his electronic mailbox, given that he had not received a notice at his address. mail, as had always been the case until that moment. That is, it was an expected attitude in the taxpayer, without being considered negligent lack of access to your mailbox, "explains lawyer José María Salcedo, partner of the firm Legal Attic.
As a consequence of the ruling, the Superior Court of Justice of Catalonia allows the company to present an appeal, on 28,231 euros of the debt claimed, that the Regional Economic Administrative Court of Catalonia (TEARC) had refused to admit claiming that it was already out of time to do so.
The Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court in January sentenced an insurer to compensate the administrator of a company to which the Treasury derived responsibility for having closed the company leaving outstanding tax debts. The ruling assumes that the civil liability of the company is accompanied by administrative obligations, in particular with the treasury, and assumes that the risk of default should be covered by insurers. For the Supreme Court, administrative responsibility (including tax liability) is something that the administrator usually assumes. And this, makes him presume that, when he arranged the insurance, he had also covered that risk, they conclude from the office Legal Attic.