Abstract

The Supreme Administrative Court (NSA) incorrectly interpreted Art. 4a (1)(2) of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act of 28 July 1983) by accepting that the phrase contained therein “where the object of acquisition by way of a donation or a donor’s order is cash (...)- document its receipt with proof of transfer to the purchaser’s payment account, to his account, other than a payment account, in a bank or a cooperative savings and credit union, or by postal money order” does not cover a gift made directly by the recipient. Such a conclusion is not directly warranted by the content of the analysed provision. The NSA does not explain why its argumentation completely omitted the applicable rules formed by law for the execution of the said contract, and uses primarily an intuitive understanding of the way in which the donor fulfils the obligation.