Abstract

The article remains a comment on a supreme administrative court ruling confirming the possibility of applying an anti-avoidance clause to a taxpayer. The authors comment on the verdict, which upheld the judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court dismissing a complaint against the refusal to issue a GAAR ruling regarding the right to recognize the loss resulting from the sale to the related party shares that have lost value due to the business failure. In the commentary, the authors are critical of the Supreme Administrative Court's failure to actually recognize the complaint's allegations relating to the tax benefit not being contrary to the object and purpose of the tax law provision. The authors emphasize also that the difficulties in interpreting the clause, resulting from the use of a large number of undefined phrases in its hypothesis, should prompt judges to pay exceptional attention when issuing and justifying rulings so that they do not have the character of arbitrary decisions.