SUPREME COURT ON TAXATION OF INCOME OF SOLE PROPRIETORS AND THE APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 74 OF THE TAX PROCEDURE ACT (ZDAVP-2)
In a revision procedure, the Supreme Court addressed the taxation of a sole proprietor who, as a self-employed individual, performed work for a limited liability company where he was also the director. The judgement no. X Ips 11/2024 addresses the distinction between employment income and business income, setting conditions under which tax authorities can reclassify income.
The Supreme Court ruled that Tax Authority may only reclassify income if they first determine that there is unlawful tax avoidance or other abuse, under Article 74 of Tax Procedure Act (ZDavP-2). In this context, the assessment must be based on the finding that the taxable person, together with other persons, has established legal relationships without a genuine business purpose, namely with the aim of creating special circumstances that lead to different taxation than what would normally occur in the usual conclusion or execution of legal transactions between reasonable entities. In this regard, the mere fact that a sole proprietor performs work for his own company is not sufficient for different taxation.
The court further stated that even in cases where unlawful tax avoidance is determined, the Tax Authority cannot determine the existence of an employment relationship as a preliminary question. Therefore, the Tax Authority cannot retroactively impose tax and contributions without a judgment from the competent labor court, as if an employment relationship with the taxpayer had existed at that time (in the past period to which the tax audit refers).
According to the ruling of the Supreme Court, the Tax Authority can, after determining unlawful tax avoidance under Article 74 of the ZDavP-2, tax the income either as income from employment received based on another dependent contractual relationship (point 2 of the third paragraph of Article 35 of the Personal Income Tax Act – Zdoh-2), or as another type of income under ZDoh-2, taking into account the circumstances that justify which taxation the taxable person sought to avoid illegally.
Given the above, we expect that the ruling will impact the tax practice in case of tax audit procedures of payments to sole proprietors regarding the risk of dependent contractual relationship.