Abstract

A consequence of European Court of Justice case law has obliged examination of the good faith of the taxpayer, as well as an obligation to exercise due diligence, has forced tax authorities and administrative courts to assess the taxpayer's awareness of his participation in VAT fraud.

As a result, more and more frequently, there are categorical statements within tax cases regarding, among others, an intention to commit a tax offence or gross negligence and underestimation of situations that raise objective suspicions.

If a taxpayer did not react on discovery of irregularities on the part of a supplier, it means that he is, for example, at fault or actively complicit in an organized group. Wording of this kind leaves a permanent record and has negative procedural effects in other proceedings conducted against the taxpayer, for example, in a criminal case being a consequence of the tax case.

This article attempts to answer the question as to what extent tax authorities and administrative courts must and should use criminal law terminology regarding tax cases, and what the future consequences may be.