In the judgment handed down in appeal 136/2015 of the second section of the National Court, a case is addressed in which the recurring commercial entity filed an administrative contentious appeal without requesting the precautionary measure to suspend the execution of the contested act.
Despite this, the Administration did not execute the contested act – which was confirmed – but at the time the court ruling fell.
Well, in these cases, the delay in the execution is attributable to the Administration, and not to the administered, so that default interest cannot be turned over to it. This is what was ultimately requested in the lawsuit and was partially estimated by the Court.
Stereotypical motivations usually cause the sanction to be canceled.
On repeated occasions -in the field of tax sanctions- we find generic motivations that are really applicable to any case.
Thus, for example, this motivation is normal in the case of sanctions for not meeting requirements:
“The tax regulations foresee that the actions or omissions typified in the laws will not give rise to liability, among others, when the necessary diligence has been put into compliance with the tax obligations.
In this case, an omission of the diligence required in relation to the obligation to meet the requirements of the Tax Administration is appreciated. This conduct is of special importance since it makes it difficult to monitor and control the tax obligations of the people or entities to which these data refer.
The requirements have been notified in compliance with current regulations as detailed in the facts section of the infringement and have not been addressed on time: therefore there is the minimum amount of guilt necessary for the tax infringement to be understood to have been committed ”
As seen in this type of motivations, neither what the requirement has consisted of is explained, nor specific data is given about it, and important data such as the dates, places and other circumstances of the notifications produced are forgotten, so that this motivation is really it is applicable to any case where requirements are not met
In these cases, the TEAR of the Valencian Community usually appreciates the annulment of the sanction for lack of motivation of guilt in the specific case.
INTRANSMISSIBILITY OF TAX PENALTIES IN CASE OF DEATH OF THE NATURAL PERSON.
Article 39 of the LGT, which speaks of the successors of natural persons, says that upon the death of the taxpayers, in no case will the sanctions be transmitted.
This derives from the personality principle of the penalty and is specifically developed, also in article 182.3 of the same Law, which comes to repeat that the tax sanctions will not be transmitted to the heirs and legatees of the offending natural persons.
As can be seen, the precepts do not distinguish between whether the sanction is appealed or not, or on a voluntary or executive basis.
Thus, for example, if the taxpayer dies while the sanction is being appealed, this would cause its extinction without being transmitted to his heirs or successors. (FD Quinto de STSJ La Rioja 86/2017 of March 16 Third FD of STSJ CV 1017/2010 of October 14)
This extinction of the sanction also extends to the interests derived from it (STS 415/2017 of March 9)
