Greece: Moving towards a tax audit rationalisation?

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Greece: Moving towards a tax audit rationalisation?

intl-updates

During the past few years, Greek enterprises have been faced with a radical change in the domestic legislative tax framework along with the conduct of rather aggressive tax audits by the Greek Tax Authorities (GTA). Nevertheless, recent developments in relation to the definition of the 'tax evasion crime' and the statutory limitation period for the assessment of taxes by the GTA appear to rationalise the tax audit practices followed to date.

Up until recently, the most common and burdensome consequence of a tax audit was the potential opening of a criminal case before the criminal authorities to investigate the committing of the infamous tax evasion crime (Article 66 of Greek Law 4174/2013 – Tax Procedures Code).

The reason for this was that, under Greek tax law, tax evasion is committed when the taxpayer intentionally avoids the payment of taxes through – among other things – the deduction of expenses deemed non-tax deductible by law (tax adjustments). In cases where the tax not paid, corresponding to said tax adjustments, exceeded the amount of €100,000 ($122,000), the objective condition of the tax evasion crime was considered as being fulfilled; accordingly, it was up to the criminal authorities to investigate further whether the subjective condition of the crime, in other words the intention to commit tax evasion by the taxpayer, also existed.

Given that tax adjustments traditionally constitute a fairly common finding in the course of a tax audit, in conjunction with the fact that the respective tax evasion threshold is rather low when it comes to large enterprises, the majority of Greek enterprises and their management were often faced with criminal sanctions merely for not applying or not correctly interpreting the tax deductibility rules. However, the GTA have very recently issued interpretative guidelines (Circular 1209/2017 of the Public Revenue Authority), explicitly stating that ordinary tax adjustments found in the course of a tax audit unrelated to the concealment of income should not, in principle, qualify as tax evasion and therefore, no criminal procedures should be initiated as a result.

Another issue often dealt with by Greek enterprises is the continuous extension of the five-year statutory limitation period for the assessment of taxes by the GTA, either by virtue of legislative provisions, or on the grounds of tax evasion commitment or due to the existence of new/supplementary data brought to the attention of the GTA. However, recent groundbreaking decisions of the Greek Supreme Court (Council of State (Plenary) Decision 1738/2017):

  • restored the application of the five-year statutory limitation rule; and

  • led the GTA to adopt the position (Legal Council of State Opinion 265/2017, adopted by the Independent Authority of Public Revenue by virtue of Circular 1191/2017) that the default statutory limitation period could be extended when new/supplementary data were brought to light. The latter would not include data that had been duly brought before the GTA within the five-year statutory limitation period but which had not been duly and properly evaluated by the GTA, nor the data that the GTA could have obtained within the five-year statutory limitation period.

These developments appear to change the tax audit landscape by adding a degree of legal certainty upon the implementation of tax evasion and statutory limitation provisions by the GTA. It could even be said that the developments mark the beginning of a new tax audit era, focusing on the audit of recent tax years and moving into the uncharted waters of audit, such as the application of the general anti-avoidance rule (GAAR) or even the application of targeted anti-avoidance rules (TAAR), which have not yet been tested to their full extent.

constantina.jpg

Constantina

Nicolaou

Constantina Nicolaou (constantina.nicolaou@gr.ey.com), Maroussi

EY

Tel: +30 210 2886 000

Website: www.ey.com

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

Germany has forgotten to think about digital reporting requirements, a WTS partner claimed at ITR’s Indirect Tax Forum 2025
E-invoicing is currently characterised by dynamism, with fragmentation acting as a key catalyst for increasing interoperability, says Aida Cavalera of the International Observatory on eInvoicing
Pillar two and the US tax system ‘could work in harmony’, Scott Levine tells ITR in an exclusive interview to mark his arrival at Baker McKenzie
Peter White, who has a tax debt of A$2 million, has been banned for five years from seeking registration with Australia’s Tax Practitioners Board (TPB)
Wopke Hoekstra’s comments followed US measures aimed against ‘unfair foreign taxes’; in other news, Grant Thornton and Holland & Knight made key tax partner hires
An Administrative Review Tribunal ruling last month in Australia v Alcoa represents a 'concerning trend' for the tax authority, one expert tells ITR
A recent decision underlines that Indian courts are more willing to look beyond just legal compliance and examine whether foreign investment structures have real business substance
Following his Liberal Party’s election victory, one source expects Mark Carney to follow the international consensus on pillar two, as experts assess the new administration
A German economics professor was reportedly ‘irritated’ by how the Finnish ministry of finance used his data
Countries that care about the fair taxation of tech multinationals and equitable global distribution of wealth should back the UN’s tax framework, writes economist Abdelmalek Riad
Gift this article