The case the income and real estate tax amounting to approximately 11 million euros that has been attributed to the father of Stefanos Kasselakis, Theodoros for the two-story villa in Ekali, has entered the “microscope” of the Council of State.
Present during the discussion was Mr. Kasselakis who, through his lawyers, insists that the taxes should be paid by the offshore company that owned the property and not by him who was the tenant.
Mr. Kaselakis, however, has so far lost the “battle” in the Administrative Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal. Thus, he appealed to the Supreme Court of Cassation asking for the annulment of the decision that requires him to pay taxes amounting to 4,016,269 euros which, together with the 20-year increments, exceeds 11.1 million euros.
The case was referred to the 7-member composition of the 6th Department where today the lawyers of Theodoros Kasselakis expressed the position that with the decisions of the Administrative Courts the constitutional protection of business freedom has been violated while they are against the separation of powers.
According to the lawyers, the assessed taxes must be paid by the Liberian offshore company, to which it appeared that the villa belonged, since as they pointed out it is still active and its solution does not appear anywhere.
In fact, they insisted that the cessation of offshore activity in Greece cannot be perceived as its dissolution. In order to strengthen their positions, Mr. Kasselakis’ lawyers invoked legislative provisions of the Commercial Law, provoking the reaction of the vice-president, Ioannis Gravaris, who noted that tax law has its own autonomy.
The rapporteur State Councillor, Varvara Rautopoulou pointed out that “in the event that a foreign company has as its sole object the exploitation of property it owns, which it then legally transfers with the result that any object of its activity ceases, while it is no longer located in its registered office in Greece, this interruption of its activity, which, in fact, is final, is equivalent to the dissolution of this business within the meaning of the tax provisions”.
In addition, it stated that this interpretation is, inter alia, in line with the principle of proportionality and the strict interpretation of tax provisions.
The SC reserved its decision.
Source: newsbeast.gr
#STE #tax #fathers #villa #Ekali
**Interview with Tax Expert Dr. Sofia Nikolidakis on the Kasselakis Tax Dispute**
**Interviewer:** Welcome, Dr. Nikolidakis. Thank you for joining us today. We want to discuss the recent tax dispute involving Theodoros Kasselakis, father of Stefanos Kasselakis, which has now reached Greece’s top administrative court. Can you give us an overview of the situation?
**Dr. Nikolidakis:** Thank you for having me. Certainly. The case revolves around a significant tax dispute concerning Theodoros Kasselakis, who is facing claims for approximately 11 million euros in income and real estate taxes linked to a villa in Ekali. The unique aspect of this case is that Mr. Kasselakis argues that the tax liability should fall on the offshore company that owned the property, rather than himself, as he was merely a tenant.
**Interviewer:** It seems like a complex case. Why do you think the courts have ruled against him so far?
**Dr. Nikolidakis:** The lower courts likely found that, as a tenant, Mr. Kasselakis still bears some legal responsibility for the tax obligations linked to properties he occupied, especially if he had control and benefited from it. The intricacies of tax law, especially concerning offshore holdings and personal liability, can lead to different interpretations, which may explain the unfavorable rulings in the Administrative Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal.
**Interviewer:** Now that the case is at the Council of State, what could be the implications of their decision?
**Dr. Nikolidakis:** The decision by the Council of State will be significant not only for Mr. Kasselakis but also for future cases involving tax liabilities and the responsibilities of tenants versus property owners. A ruling in his favor could set a precedent for how tax obligations are viewed in similar situations, particularly involving offshore entities. Conversely, a ruling against him could reinforce the existing framework of tenant responsibilities.
**Interviewer:** What should taxpayers take away from this case?
**Dr. Nikolidakis:** It’s crucial for taxpayers to understand their potential liabilities when it comes to properties they occupy, even as tenants. Engaging with tax professionals and being aware of the complexities surrounding property ownership, especially with offshore companies involved, can help in navigating these issues more effectively.
**Interviewer:** Thank you, Dr. Nikolidakis, for your insights on this developing story. We appreciate your expertise.
**Dr. Nikolidakis:** My pleasure! Thank you again for having me.
