When the deceased has paid tax, and the tax authorities have opened an tax assessment procedure after their death, who is the recipient of the procedure, and does the heir benefit from the heirs' voluntary disclosure?
The deceased could withdraw sums of money from a third party's account. The third party died in 2012. The deceased died in 2020, leaving her sister as the sole heir. During the inventory proceedings, the tax authorities discovered that the deceased had withdrawn two sums of money in 2012 and 2015 from the third party's account and have initiated proceedings against the deceased's heir, namely the sole heir sister, for back taxes.
Federal judges confirm that the heiress has the standing to defend\/act (the deceased seizes the living, their closest heir).
Can the heiress benefit from the voluntary disclosure by the heirs? If so, would the tax authorities' proceedings become void, with the tax periods concerned being prior to the three years before death?.
It is unclear how the tax authorities became aware of the two disputed withdrawals. Was it through an announcement by the third party's executrix? However, the point is not important as the tax authorities had the information.
The heiress had no idea about the existence of the power of attorney on this third-party account and the debits made. She was unable to make a voluntary disclosure.
The judges retain the following ratio legis from the analysis of the topical provision:
The three official languages discuss tax subtraction
It's a *lex specialis* of spontaneous standard disclosure.
\u25b6\ufe0f a denunciation is required, namely that no authority (federal, cantonal or communal) has knowledge of the stolen items
The aim is to ensure correct taxation.
The law is harsh, but it is the law.
Please note: due to the case law of the ECHR, there can be no subtraction procedure (fine) in such a situation:
Fines are eminently personal
A debt arising from a fine is extinguished on death and does not pass to the heirs.
The ruling is in German. It is a Zurich case. Publication in the Federal Supreme Court decisions is planned.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
TF, judgment 9C_42\/2024, of 5 December 2024<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\ud83d\udc49 Lorsque le d\u00e9funt a soustrait l’imp\u00f4t, que le fisc a ouvert une proc\u00e9dure en rappel d’imp\u00f4t apr\u00e8s le d\u00e9c\u00e8s, qui est le destinataire de la proc\u00e9dure et l’h\u00e9ritier b\u00e9n\u00e9ficie-t-il de la d\u00e9nonciation spontan\u00e9e des h\u00e9ritiers? \ud83d\udc49 La d\u00e9funte pouvait pr\u00e9lever des sommes d’argent sur le compte d’un tiers. Le tiers est d\u00e9c\u00e9d\u00e9 en 2012. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-165","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n