COUNCIL OF STATE 3. HEAD OF DEPARTMENT
TO BE SENT TO
ANTALYA 2. TO THE TAX COURT
STATE COUNCIL FILE NO :
file number :
DECISION CORRECTION
THE PLAINTIFF WHO FILED THE CLAIM:
REGENTS :
DEFENDANT : .. Directorate of Corporate Tax Administration
attorney :
SUBJECT : The decision is our request for correction.
INSTRUCTIONS :
December June April July July June 2009, there is no possibility to be held liable for tax arrears for the periods, there is no compliance with the law in the part of the payment order in question related to public receivables numbered 128, 130 and 1320, the Courts of cases filed against tarhiyats made for the periods July to December 2009 and June and July 2010 …/../date of 2015 and E:2013/…, .., K:2015/.. Where is rejected by the decision numbered 621, the company carried out a survey of the assets to be notified of the payment orders to and even though the company in question in his capacity as partner of uncollectible receivables that are responsible for the plaintiff’s public” reasons, 128, 130, 132 cancellation of payment orders in respect of public receivables track number, 124, 125, 127, 129, 131, 133, 134 track number and 135 public receivables in respect of the case of a denial, it was decided to.
Council of State 3. Department of Law …/…/dated 2019, 2016/… E. – 2019/… K. in his decision no;
“1.Partial refusal of the plaintiff’s appeal request,
2 … . Of The Tax Court ../../ decision of 2015 and E:2015 /…, K:2015 /…, the payment order in question of the case, …/../ APPROVAL of the provision paragraph on the rejection of the case in terms of the part that hits the periods after 2009,
Partial acceptance of the plaintiff’s appeal request,
4.The decision is to be overturned in order to establish a provision on the special irregularity penalty No. 1269 for the period April 2009 within the content of the payment order,
The defendant agrees to the request for appeal,
Your decision, your payment order, ../../ the provision on the cancellation of the part related to the periods before 2009 has been amended to the ”DETERIORATION of the paragraph”.
Regarding the decision of the Court of First instance 1 no.lu 6 issued as a result of the consent decree and the defendant’s appeals no.lu we request to correct the decision in terms of the overturning provision as follows:
The period of arrears in the payment order is related to the year 2009. The incident that gave rise to the tax is related to the calendar years 2007, 2008 and 2009, and, as can be seen from the documents presented in the case file, the payment order is to the surrogates../../ it was notified in 2015. Amme’s due out of time. It is clearly contrary to the law and justice to burden the overdue receivable to the client.
In addition, the penalties that form the basis of the debts in the content of the payment order have not yet been finalized by the company. By the company … of the Tax Court 2013/… E. The cancellation case has been substituted with the numbered file and the relevant file is under review by the Council of State for the decision correction request. Therefore, there is no finalized penalty against the company yet.
On the date of the incident that gave rise to the tax, the deputy (…) .. … .. Ltd. Şti. he is not authorized to represent any partnership or company. The tax debts subject to the lawsuit were accrued during the period when the client did not even have a partnership.
It is not possible to hold the company responsible due to the period when the proxy does not have the right to represent the company. Therefore, it is clearly contrary to the law and procedure for the proxy to be held accountable based on the payment orders sent. The decision was made based on incomplete examination without investigation by the court in this regard.
During the taxation period of public receivables, during the period when they are accrued, the client is not responsible for reporting the public receivables of the company listed in the law, nor is the client entitled to any representative capacity. It is clearly against the law for the client to be held accountable by the local court.
About company assets where the research was carried out however, these studies raise the debt from the company as a result of the absence of goods of any document submitted will not be able to collect from, although the company of public receivables ineligible on the grounds that it is unlawful for the client to be installed with the defect.
In addition, information about the company’s officials included in the invoices, which are the basis for the irregularities, is provided.. The Criminal Court of First Instance ../../dated 2014, 2012/..E. – the verdict of acquittal was given by the decision No. 2014/… and the verdict of acquittal reveals that the reports that the invoices that constitute the basis for the penalty for irregularities are fake invoices do not reflect the truth, and the penalties deducted based on these reports are also subject to cancellation.
For all these reasons, it is against the law to accept only our appeals against the special irregularity penalty No. 1260, while the payment orders and transactions related to the tax penalty must be canceled completely for all these reasons. That is why we are requesting a decision correction.
CONCLUSION AND REQUEST: We would like to request that our request for correction of the decision, explained in detail above and in our appeal petition and for reasons that will be considered in your re, be accepted and the decision of the Court of first instance be overturned. Best regards. 10.06.2020
Plaintiff’s Attorney
