The Missing Receipt and the Tax Assessment
Mercearia do Cazenga, a small retail business, was subject to a tax inspection for the 2023 tax year. The tax authority (AGT) assessed additional corporate income tax of 8,500,000 Kz, alleging that the business under-declared sales by 30,000,000 Kz based on an 'indirect method' comparing purchases to declared sales. The inspection report was issued on 20 October 2024, and the assessment was notified to the taxpayer on 5 November 2024. The taxpayer had 30 days to respond but filed its written defence on 10 December 2024. The AGT rejected the defence as late and confirmed the assessment. The taxpayer argues: (a) the indirect method was not explained in the report; (b) it was never given a chance to be heard before the assessment; and (c) the deadline should be extended because its accountant was ill in November. The business kept proper purchase invoices but admits some cash sales were not receipted.
1. Evaluate the procedural and substantive grounds of the taxpayer's defence and the effect of the late filing.
Read the worked answer
Ground (a) - unexplained indirect method. Tax assessments based on indirect methods must be reasoned and explain the method, the data used, and the calculations, so the taxpayer can defend itself. A bare assertion comparing purchases to sales, without showing the workings, is insufficiently reasoned and defective.
Ground (b) - right to be heard. Before an assessment, the taxpayer must be given an opportunity to respond to the inspection findings (prior hearing / audição prévia). If the AGT issued the assessment without allowing this, the act is procedurally defective.
Ground (c) - late filing and illness. The 30-day period runs from notification (5 November 2024), so it expired around 5 December 2024. The defence filed 10 December is late. Illness of an accountant is generally not a legal ground for extension unless a formal justified request (force majeure / just impediment) was made within the period. No such request appears.
Effect of lateness. Late filing may cause the administrative defence to be rejected, but it does not cure the AGT's own defects. The taxpayer can still raise the lack of reasoning and the breach of the right to be heard in a judicial challenge, since these are matters the court examines.
Substantive point. The admitted unreceipted cash sales support some adjustment; the dispute is the quantum and the method, not the principle.
2. What should the taxpayer do next, and what is the realistic outcome?
Read the worked answer
Next steps:
- Judicial challenge of the assessment within the applicable deadline, pleading: (i) lack of reasoning / unexplained indirect method; (ii) breach of the prior hearing; (iii) excessive quantum.
- Request the inspection file and the detailed calculations to test the method.
- Reconstruct sales using purchase invoices, bank records and any available cash records to rebut the 30,000,000 Kz figure.
- Acknowledge the unreceipted cash sales honestly and propose a corrected, reasoned figure.
Realistic outcome:
- The procedural defects (unreasoned method, no hearing) likely lead the court to annul or partially annul the assessment and, where appropriate, order a new reasoned assessment.
- The taxpayer will probably not escape all liability, because it admits some unreceipted sales; a reduced assessment is the most likely result.
- The late defence alone will not save the taxpayer, but the substantive/procedural defects give it a genuine path to reduction or annulment.
Advice: file on time, quantify the challenge, and avoid relying on the accountant's illness without documented justification.