Audit of Value Added Tax

Report ID: 11

Prüfungsziel
Ziel der Gebarungsüberprüfung war die Untersuchung der Wirksamkeit der Betrugsbekämpfungsmaßnahmen des BMF, insbesondere der Steuerfahndung nach der Reform der Betrugsbekämpfungseinheiten im Jahr 2007. Der RH überprüfte bzw. analysierte schwerpunktmäßig

• die Erreichung der Ziele der Reform der Steuerfahndung,
• die Verfahrensabläufe und die organisatorische Eingliederung bzw. Ausgestaltung der Steuerfahndung,
• die Ressourcenausstattung der Steuerfahndung,
• das Managementinformationssystem der Steuerfahndung sowie
• die Zusammenarbeit und die Schnittstellen mit anderen Betrugsbekämpfungseinheiten im Bereich der Finanzverwaltung.

Intra-Community VAT fraud

Report ID: 16

In collaboration with the Dutch SAI (Algemeen Rekenkamer) and the German SAI (Bundesrechnungshof), the Belgian Court examined whether tax authorities are sufficiently resourced to combat VAT carousel fraud. The report to the federal Parliament with the findings for Belgium reveals that the department rightly prioritize fraud prevention and fraud detection. As a matter of fact it is very difficult to collect evaded VAT, VAT arrears and penalties when fraud carousels are involved. As far as prevention is concerned, the tax department performs an adequate review before assigning a VAT number. Tax authorities are insufficiently resourced to prevent malafide persons from infiltrating existing companies. The opportunities for international information exchanges are not used in an optimal way. The Eurocanet network created by Belgium allows for quick and targeted information exchanges between specialized tax authorities, but loses some of its impact because not all European Member States participate equally.

Intra-Community VAT fraud. Joint follow-up report

Report ID: 17

In 2009, the courts of the Netherlands (Algemene Rekenkamer), Germany (Bundesrechnungshof) and Belgium examined the treatment of intra-Community VAT fraud. As part of this audit, which was carried out in parallel with the Netherlands, Germany and Belgium, the central question raised was whether the tax authorities had sufficient resources to deal with this fraud. In the first part, the audit examines the measures available to the authorities to prevent malicious people from setting up fraud (prevention) systems. The audit then examines the available measures to detect and dismantle existing fraud schemes (detection). Finally, it analyzes whether the infringements found (and how many) have led to an effective recovery of the amounts of VAT due, arrears and fines (repression).

As part of a follow-up audit carried out in 2011-2012, the three courts examined the efforts made by the national administrations to implement the recommendations made in 2009.

The Court of Auditors acknowledges that the administration has taken initiatives to implement a number of recommendations. Thus, companies that file only "nil" statements are now being investigated more quickly.

In the area of ​​fraud prevention, efforts are still needed to make it possible to use the background information when assigning a VAT number. The Court also encourages the administration to intensify its efforts within the Benelux to formulate proposals for a uniform European policy on registration and cancellation.

Administration of the Value Added Tax

Report ID: 35

Objective of audit:

(CZ) The objective of the audit in the Czech Republic was to review the procedure used by financial authorities in administrating value added tax following integration of the Czech Republic into the common internal market of the European Community (hereinafter “EC”), connected with free movement of goods and services, and to review the use of the VIES1, particularly monitoring the exercise of the right to exempt intra-Community deliveries from value added tax.

(D) The objective of the audit was to review the system of intra-Community VAT control with a special focus on administrative cooperation in the field of VAT according to the above mentioned regulations. As a result of this, weaknesses should be reported and recommendations be developed to address the problems stated.

The audits were performed by the Supreme Audit Office, Czech Republic (hereinafter the “SAO”) and by the German Bundesrechnungshof (hereinafter “BRH”) in mutual cooperation on the basis of an agreement concluded between the two audit institutions on June 8, 2006. The cooperation primarily concerned the review of selected commercial transactions between taxpayers from the Czech Republic (hereinafter “CR”) and from the Federal Republic of Germany (hereinafter “Germany”), use of information obtained via international cooperation between tax administrations and comparison of the VAT administration systems in the two countries.

Based on an agreement between the two SAI the parallel audit on the administration of VAT in the CR and Germany was carried out. Besides the main point – exchange of information based on the Council Regulation (EC) No 1798/2003 and the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1925/2004 – the audit covered other topics as for instance the registration of taxpayers, VAT returns and recapitulative statements that are closely linked with it. Additionally, the legal situation in terms of international bus transportation of passengers and the comparison of certain statistical data were part of the audit.

By comparing the systems of administration of VAT in the two countries differences were found in the following areas:

1. Registration for VAT
2. International bus transportation of passengers
3. VAT returns
4. Recapitulative statements
5. International exchange of information in the area of VAT
6. Risk management

As part of cooperation, the two SAI reviewed selected cases of intra-Community transactions processed by tax entities in theCR and Germany. Thirty-one cases of business transactions were reviewed jointly using the legal provisions of the CLO, where there were doubts about their realization, their proper treatment or suspicion of VAT fraud. The SAI found that:

• In some cases, tax offi ces made use of the information obtained via international exchange and have reassessed taxpayer’s VAT liability. In those cases, taxpayers either unlawfully applied the right for exemption of supplies from VAT, or did not declare acquisition of goods in their VAT return.
• In some cases, tax offices could not make use of the information obtained, because the information was incomplete or incomprehensible. In other cases, the information could not be used because of differing legal provisions in both Member States.
• In some cases, the tax administration of another Member State refused to reply to a request for information.
• Some cases were detected, where taxpayers wrongly declared business transactions in their recapitulative statements. As a result of this, data in VIES were erroneous and therefore the tax administrators had to review those cases.

Rapport sur le contrôle coordonné des subventions fiscales

Report ID: 113

Le VIe Congrès de l'EUROSAI, qui s'est tenu à Bonn du 30 mai au 2 juin 2005, a traité du contrôle des recettes publiques par les Institutions supérieures de contrôle (ISC). L'analyse des documents nationaux soumis par les membres de l'EUROSAI avant le congrès a montré, entre autres, que les connaissances sur l'efficacité des subventions fiscales sont encore insuffisantes, a noté l'étendue et la complexité de la législation fiscale qui peut conduire à des insuffisances et à des exceptions fiscales et a conclu que les ISC devraient élaborer des conclusions plus fiables sur le volume et la réalisation des objectifs de ces subventions fiscales.

Le Congrès a donc préconisé la réalisation d'un audit coordonné des subventions fiscales, ouvert à tous les membres de l'EUROSAI. A cet effet, un groupe de travail a été créé afin de coordonner la planification de l'audit et d'en établir le contenu et les rubriques. Les Institutions supérieures de contrôle d'Allemagne, de Chypre, du Danemark, de France, de Finlande, de Hongrie, d'Islande, d'Italie, de Lettonie, de Lituanie, de Pologne, de Roumanie, de la Fédération de Russie, de Suède, de Suisse, de la République slovaque, du Royaume-Uni et des Pays-Bas (observateur) ont participé à l'audit.

Les objectifs de l'audit coordonné étaient les suivants
- Améliorer le partage des connaissances,
- Améliorer la communication entre les membres de l'EUROSAI dans des domaines d'intérêt particulier,
- Obtenir des informations sur les meilleures pratiques,
- Renforcer les réseaux informels,

Afin d'obtenir des résultats comparables, une liste de contrôle a été rédigée, portant sur toutes les étapes d'une subvention fiscale, depuis la législation jusqu'au rapport, en passant par la mise en œuvre. En même temps, cette liste de contrôle a constitué le cadre non contraignant d'un audit de la transparence et des rapports. En outre, trois sous-groupes de travail ont été créés pour traiter des subventions fiscales spécifiques : l'impôt sur le revenu des sociétés, la taxe sur la valeur ajoutée et le rapport sur la transparence et les subventions.

A l'issue des travaux d'audit, le groupe de travail est arrivé à la conclusion que, concernant les subventions fiscales, des améliorations étaient nécessaires dans les domaines de la législation, de l'évaluation et de l'établissement de rapports dans tous les Etats participants, afin de créer la transparence globale qu'il juge nécessaire tant pour le législateur que pour le grand public.

Source:https://www.eurosai.org/en/working-groups/historic-working-groups-committees/coordinated-audit-on-tax-subsidies-working-group/index.html