hit tracker
Monday, March 4, 2024
HomeLatest NewsOpinion by Felix Bornstein | The silly telephone of the treasury

Opinion by Felix Bornstein | The silly telephone of the treasury

Date: March 4, 2024 Time: 00:30:00

In compliance with its legal obligations to assist the taxpayer, the Tax Agency has drawn up a plan for the income statement campaign. This is the “We call you” Plan. For the good end of the provision of the service, the taxpayer must make an appointment. In this campaign (year 2022), the deadline to request an appointment began on May 3 and will end on June 29. From this interview, the taxpayer will leave with notification of an approximate time in which he will receive a call from the personal specialist (supposedly) of the Agency in preparing the IRPF returns. This punctual assistance to the taxpayer is part of the mandate addressed to the Administration by article 83.2 of the General Tax Law (LGT).

The telephone service (easy, free, priced and… disastrous)

Not everyone is entitled to the provision of telephone service. The IRPF regulations establish a closed list of actions that exclusively enable their holders to receive the little call. The legal bias – the “reserved right of admission” – puts taxpayers in the telephone bag based on the nature of their income and its amount. Take note the kind lecturer of qualities are the numerus clausus for the telephone admission:

1.- Work income, with a limit of 65,000 euros per year.

2.- Income from business activities in modules (subsidies included).

3.- Income from movable capital, with a limit of 15,000 euros per year.

4.-Returns on real estate capital, with a limit of two rented properties.

5.- Capital gains subject to withholding or payment on account.

6.- Capital gains from transmissions (two transmissions maximum).

7.- Basic emancipation income, subsidies and other capital gains and losses (without transfer).

8. Allocation of real estate income.

A telephone farce based on real events

April 10, 2019. Mr. A, married to Mrs. B, requests an appointment with the Tax Agency so that his “telephone agents” prepare the IRPF declarations of the marriage for the financial year 2018. The financial returns of the couple they are few, minor and easily fit into the Agency’s computer program. Mr. A, who has no tax knowledge, “sings” them to a member of the technical staff of the Tax Administration. On the other side of the phone line, the specialist [sic] of the Treasury types the data into his computer. His work does not throw the difficulty that a nuclear engineer or an astrophysicist must endure. The Agency technician can view two columns on his screen: the one on the left details the results (differential fee included) of the “individual returns”. The results of the “joint modality” appear in the hemistich on the right. After a few minutes, the operator tells Mr. A that the best

option for spouses is the “individual declaration” (two, of course). Mr. A “gets” a quota to return for importation of 1,282.32 euros. Mr. A, joyful, jumping for joy, answers without thinking twice: “Yes, I want to.” In all honesty, the telephone operator has not bothered to notify Mr. A of the legal possibility of jointly paying taxes with Mrs. B. The operator is not paid enough to make such an effort. Or maybe he has a vocal cord disease. I think not because several neighbors in the neighborhood have heard him shout “‘bingo!” in the House of Extremadura.

On July 22, 2020, and after repeatedly discussing his doubts with the financial controller of the bank where he works, Mr. A filed a request to rectify the 2018 personal income tax return at the Agency’s management office, understand that both he and his wife would have obtained a better tax result if they had opted for joint taxation. Who knows if the informer of the truth was the telephone operator with such an unpleasant memory (only auditory) for Mr. A, an operator with a special large family capable of killing for moonlighting?

The answer was known to the village idiot. The Head of the National Tax Management Office (resolutions of October 20, 2020 and March 3, 2021) on Personal Income Tax (which, for the 2018 financial year, ended on July 1, 2019). Article 119.3 LGT is clear and precise. Fickle taxpayers and pastry chefs, like Mr. A, must eat their milongas in the circus of onanistic clowns. Even the Tax Law itself (articles 82 and 83) follows in single file the dictates of the LGT.

On April 4, 2021, Mr. A referred the matter to the Central Economic-Administrative Tribunal (TEAC). The Court, through a resolution dated January 31, 2023, has agreed with Mrs. B’s husband. Notwithstanding the literalness of the cited precepts, the TEAC affirms that Mr. A’s consent to the telephone agent’s proposal was vitiated by a circumstance beyond his control, such as the inexperience of the telephone operator. The rectification requested by Mr. A was not due to any whim but to malpractice by the Tax Agency, radically opposed to the principles of distributive justice, economic capacity, legitimate trust in State institutions and good Administration.

The damage caused to Mr. A and Mrs. B by the Tax Agency amounted to 2,300 individual euros). In this unfortunate and rude way, the right of the taxpayer to be assisted by the Administration in the preparation and presentation of personal income tax returns (or in the confirmation of the “draft” sent by the Treasury) was fulfilled.

The technical assistance provided by the Tax Agency to taxpayers when making the personal income tax return goes beyond a simple transcription. In our case, the telephone assistance was imprecise, incomplete and had false expectations for taxpayers, of whom it can be affirmed, without any doubt, that they acted naively and without any hint of fraud. These are all powerful reasons for the annulment of the individual self-assessments, and for the recognition by the TEAC of the right of taxpayers to modify their option, even if it is extemporaneous, and replace the individual returns of the 2018 financial year with a joint return, upon request and acceptance. by Mrs B.

The future

The botch committed “against” Mr. A and Mrs. B has not been the only one in the historical series of trigger shots perpetrated by the “assistants” of the Tax Agency, including their telephone operators. It is not an anecdote. It is a symptom of the serious deficiencies of the “customer service”, where laziness, laziness and lack of rigor in the provision of the service are rampant. Will “attendance” improve over time, a beer without alcohol and greater control by the Secretary of State for Finance, on which the Tax Agency depends? Nothing would please me more than the effective confirmation of the slogan “We are all the Treasury.” However, reality prevails. Reality is called Marisu, the exultant and trumpeter Marisu, the woman who does everything right and is never wrong. Without self-criticism improvements are impossible.

What sin have we Spaniards committed to deserve the ordinary vanity of María Jesús Montero and the professional mediocrity of her zoquetes?

* This website provides news content gathered from various internet sources. It is crucial to understand that we are not responsible for the accuracy, completeness, or reliability of the information presented Read More

Puck Henry
Puck Henry
Puck Henry is an editor for ePrimefeed covering all types of news.
RELATED ARTICLES

Most Popular

Recent Comments