The tax office wants to know how we are financing our construction project

The logic that when the tax office notices that land has been acquired, yes building land, then it is assumed that there is probably black money here. Why does citizen xy actually have to answer such questions? Spend his time on such things? Explain himself, prove his innocence? It does not seem to be consistent practice. Here I do not know of such cases. He himself has no letter, I do not know anyone who had one. Karsten

A citizen must declare themselves to the state because it is repeatedly recommended in internet forums to conduct transactions in cash so that Father State does not get involved or receive anything.

By the way, this state also collects your salary...

We are completely at odds here. K.

In connection with supplementary declarations, I often received inquiries from the tax office in which the source of funds was to be clarified. Whether justified or not, it doesn't help you if the appeals department stands behind the caseworker and you have to fight for your rights before the tax court in case of doubt.

By the way, when I was still at the tax office, this was a completely normal procedure to clarify sudden wealth. This applies, for example, when expensive items were purchased and no capital income had been declared for years beforehand.

Currently, the automatic exchange of information is imminent, and many "fugitives" of assets from Switzerland, Austria, Liechtenstein, and Luxembourg were or are still being pursued to some extent today.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
The logic that when the tax office notices that land has been acquired, yes building land, then it is assumed that there is probably black money involved. Why does citizen xy actually have to answer such questions? Spend his time on such matters? Explain himself, declare his innocence?

And how do you think the tax office should detect tax fraud? Wait for a voluntary disclosure? Authorities usually also have a supervisory function for their area of responsibility. They can only fulfill this by questioning things. Does the letter contain information on legal remedies? From this one can assess how "threatening" (to be taken seriously, important, ...) it actually is. If this is missing, initially nothing happens if there is no response. If it is there, it is an official notice, and only then do immediate consequences threaten. I consider the approach of the tax office to be legitimate and even important. After all, it is about my (our) money when someone evades taxes. I therefore expressly welcome it.

Hmm. I have learned that our law presumes everyone to be innocent until proven otherwise. An authority that pokes around like that apparently sees it differently. And that is not okay. My opinion. Karsten

Unreserved agreement. I also see no point in prematurely complying with every unjustified "let's just try it" request. "The authority" is not a - by definition - "correct" (whatever that may mean) working miracle machine, but represented by people. And they all try, each in their own way (some clumsy, some cautious, some cunning), to achieve their respective goals. That's it.

PS: no, not bashing authorities, after all, we all act like that (of course including Steph).


Regards