Injustice in Article 189 of the Direct Taxes Law
Abbas Fafad*
In Article 189 of the Direct Taxes Law, it is stated as follows: “Legal entities as well as natural persons subject to clauses (a) and (b) of Article 95 of this law, if their balance sheet, profit and loss account, books and documents are accepted during three consecutive years. have received and paid the tax of each year in the year of submission of the statement without referring to the tax dispute resolution boards, equivalent to 5% of the tax principal of the mentioned three years, in addition to using the benefits stipulated in Article 190 of this law as a bonus from the current collections Payment or in the account of their subsequent years will be considered.
Abbas Fafad*
In Article 189 of the Direct Taxes Law, it is stated as follows: “Legal entities as well as natural persons subject to clauses (a) and (b) of Article 95 of this law, if their balance sheet, profit and loss account, books and documents are accepted during three consecutive years. have received and paid the tax of each year in the year of submission of the statement without referring to the tax dispute resolution boards, equivalent to 5% of the tax principal of the mentioned three years, in addition to using the benefits stipulated in Article 190 of this law as a bonus from the current collections Payment or in the account of their subsequent years will be considered. The related prize will be exempted from paying taxes.
According to the aforementioned legal article, the inclusion of a good account award to Modi requires the fulfillment of the following three conditions:
1- The balance sheet, profit and loss account, books and documents of Modi have been accepted.
2- The tax has been paid every year in the year of submission of the declaration.
3- Modi has not referred to tax dispute resolution boards.
Irrespective of the fact that the meaning of “declaration submission year” in which the tax must be paid every year is unclear and can be interpreted in several ways, one of the conditions for the inclusion of the good account award is that Modi does not refer to tax dispute resolution boards. In other words, if Modi goes to the tax dispute resolution boards for any reason, he will not be awarded the good account award under Article 189 of the law.
It is clear that the legislator violated tax justice and violated the rights of taxpayers by enacting this legal provision. Because the necessary condition for the award of good accounting is that the taxpayer accepts the tax specified by the tax affairs organization, regardless of whether it is correct or not. In other words, in cases where the taxpayer’s rights have been violated by the tax affairs organization and the taxpayer is forced to refer to the tax dispute resolution boards in order to assert his right, and these boards or relevant authorities have finally issued a decision in favor of the taxpayer, the legislator instead of Adopting measures to compensate the losses imposed by the tax affairs organization on Modi, for this reason, has deprived Modi of his legal right to use the Khosh-Ash-e-Bhi award.
Therefore, in order to respect the rights of taxpayers, it is necessary for the legislator to amend Article 189 of the Direct Taxes Law and add the following text after the phrase “they have paid without referring to the tax dispute resolution boards”: “or in case of referring to the resolution boards tax dispute, the final decision by this board or other relevant legal authorities has been issued in favor of Modi.
* Tehran University Lecturer,
Official accountant and official judicial expert
This post is written by shadmanamini