Possibility to reopen tax proceedings concluded with a final decision

Tax decisions that are no longer open to appeal are valid even if they are defective. On the basis of the existing decisions, the authorities may conduct enforcement proceedings aimed at enforcing receivables.

If you are in doubt as to the correctness of the proceedings that ended with a final decision, there are legal possibilities to achieve a resumption of the proceedings.

The resumption of the proceedings is one of the extraordinary tax proceedings. Extraordinary proceedings serve the purpose of eliminating final tax decisions whose amendment or overturning is justified by the interest of the parties, serious defects in the decision or their disorganizing effect on legal relations. Resumption of the proceedings is aimed at removing serious defects in tax proceedings which have already become apparent after the final decision has been issued. Its essence is to reconsider a tax case that has ended with a final decision in view of the qualified defects that the proceedings preceding the decision were affected by. These defects are at the same time prerequisites for reopening the proceedings.

One of the infringements of the procedural provisions which may lead to the reopening of proceedings ended with a final decision is the lack of suspension of the period of limitation of the tax liability in connection with the initiation of criminal proceedings or proceedings concerning a tax offence or misdemeanour, of which the taxpayer was not informed at the latest on the expiry of the limitation period.

In June 2020, the tax advisor Iwona Jacieczko secured for our Client the reopening of two tax proceedings conducted for 2008 and 2009, in which final decisions were issued and enforcement proceedings were conducted despite the fact that the tax liabilities specified in the above mentioned decisions had expired due to the statute of limitations. In the cases in question, the duly appointed attorney of the taxpayer has not received notifications about the suspension of the limitation period for tax liabilities, thus there was no suspension of the limitation period. The omission regarding the delivery of letters to the attorney appointed in the case means that those letters did not enter into legal circulation in the manner required by law.