Login | Register
Items in shopping cart: 0 | View
Smer-designed law change helps Lidl
15 Jul 2014 Flash News
THE RULING Smer party has secretly and quickly changed a law, based on which the retail chain Lidl should have lost its business licence. The tax office revealed in the beginning of the year that the chain was issuing receipts from defective cash registers, which could enable it to cheat when paying taxes. Though the current valid law allows the state to revoke Lidl’s business licence, nobody has submitted such a proposal yet, the Sme daily reported in its July 15 issue.
Under the new rules, which will become effective in October, only businesses that issue defective receipts that, based on proof from the Financial Administration (FA), will artificially decrease their revenues and thus pay lower taxes, will lose their licence. In other cases the businesses will only be fined.
In the case of Lidl, the FA, which has reviewed more than 300 receipts, announced that Lidl reported all of its revenues and paid its taxes properly, as reported by Sme. The daily also reported that the tax office has allegedly not filed any proposal to revoke the retailer’s licence, since they are afraid they would not be able to defend such a move in court.
It is possible that the tax office will continue to postpone its final decision until October, when the new law goes into effect.
“If the FA does not file a motion with the licensing office as the valid law stipulates, then it will not be possible at all,” Radovan Pala, lawyer with TaylorWessing e/n/w/c law firm, told Sme.
Compiled by Radka Minarechová from press reports
The Slovak Spectator cannot vouch for the accuracy of the information presented in its Flash News postings.
Most read articles
Euro Calculator (Sk30.1260 = 1 EUR)
What influences your travel plans?
Quote of the Week
“I have been waiting for seven weeks, naively [thinking] … that he would come and say: ‘Yes people, I was fooling you. I am sorry; try to forgive me’.” OĽaNO head Igor Matovič responding to Sieť leader Radoslav Procházka’s claims that the recording on which the two discuss the latter’s presidential campaign funding was heavily edited.