1. What is the current legal landscape for Tax Disputes in your jurisdiction?

The Greek tax disputes landscape is characterised by increased digitalisation, more intensive tax audits and a growing need for taxpayers to respond promptly and on the basis of properly documented evidence.

The Independent Authority for Public Revenue (AADE) increasingly relies on electronic data, including information generated through myDATA, electronic invoicing and automated cross-checks. Tax audits are increasingly based on risk analysis and the comparison of data from different sources, such as tax returns, accounting records, bank transactions and information obtained from third parties.

Where a tax assessment is issued, the taxpayer must, as a general rule, file an administrative recourse before the Dispute Resolution Directorate (DRD) before bringing proceedings before the Administrative Courts. The deadline is generally 30 days from notification of the tax assessment, and the administrative recourse must present the taxpayer’s legal arguments and supporting evidence comprehensively. If the administrative recourse is rejected, the taxpayer may challenge that decision before the Administrative Courts. Depending on the amount in dispute and the procedural route followed, obtaining a final and irrevocable decision from the Council of State may take approximately five to seven years from the date of the tax assessment.

It is also important to note that, at the administrative recourse stage, a decision of the DRD in favour of the taxpayer cannot be challenged by the State. By contrast, where the taxpayer succeeds before the Administrative Courts, the State may challenge the judgment through the available appellate remedies, including an appeal and, where applicable, an application for cassation before the Council of State.

In addition, taxpayers may, under certain conditions, accept the findings of a tax audit before a formal tax assessment is issued and benefit from a significant reduction in penalties. This enables them to assess the merits of their case at an early stage and limit the financial and time-related burden of further proceedings.

The Greek tax system is therefore becoming more digital and targeted, but also more demanding for taxpayers. Prompt legal assessment, proper documentation and the selection of the appropriate procedural strategy are now even more essential. Evaluating the case from the audit stage onwards may have a significant impact on the taxpayer’s overall financial exposure.

2. What three essential pieces of advice would you give to clients involved in Tax Disputes matters?

First, act promptly and protect all procedural deadlines. Tax disputes are governed by strict time limits, particularly the deadline for filing an administrative recourse before the Dispute Resolution Directorate. Clients should seek advice from the beginning of a tax audit, secure access to the administrative file and preserve all relevant accounting, contractual and banking records.

Secondly, assess the matter strategically rather than emotionally. The decision whether to challenge a tax assessment should take into account the strength of the legal arguments, the available evidence, the amount of tax, penalties and interest, the expected duration and cost of the proceedings, and the possible impact on tax clearance and business operations.

Thirdly, remain patient and realistic. The best result is not always the most ambitious result. A negotiated or partial solution may sometimes be preferable to lengthy litigation with uncertain prospects. In tax disputes, the optimal strategy may require accepting a limited disadvantage in order to avoid a substantially greater overall risk.

3. What are the greatest threats and opportunities in Tax Disputes law in the next 12 months?

The principal threat is the increasing use of data analytics and automated cross-checks by Tax Administration. Differences between myDATA records, tax returns, accounting books, bank transactions and information submitted by third parties may trigger an audit even where there has been no intention to evade tax. Businesses should therefore review their records regularly and ensure that significant transactions are supported by complete documentation.

The main opportunity is the possibility of resolving certain pending tax disputes through the Committee for the Out-of-Court Settlement of Tax Disputes. Where the prospects of success in litigation are limited, this procedure may allow taxpayers to achieve finality and reduce the financial burden arising from penalties and interest. Depending on the applicable conditions and the payment schedule, reductions of between 35% and 75% may be available, with payment in up to 24 interest-free instalments (the less installments the more benefit).

This opportunity must nevertheless be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Before withdrawing or abandoning any pending proceedings, the taxpayer should compare the proposed settlement with the likely outcome, cost and duration of continuing the litigation.

4. How do you ensure high client satisfaction levels are maintained by your practice?

Our approach is based on clear communication, realistic advice and close management of each matter. From the outset, we explain the strengths and weaknesses of the case, the relevant deadlines, the likely costs and the available procedural options.

We organise the factual and documentary record systematically and, where necessary, work closely with accountants, tax advisers and financial experts. This is particularly important because tax disputes often depend not only on legal interpretation, but also on the accurate presentation of transactions and the quality of the supporting evidence.

Clients are kept informed throughout the process in practical terms. They need to understand not only the legal arguments, but also the potential financial exposure, the expected duration and the consequences of each available decision.

Finally, we consider professional independence essential. A client must be told when a claim is strong, but also when the evidence is insufficient or a settlement is preferable to protracted and uncertain litigation. Long-term trust depends on accuracy and candour rather than on unrealistic assurances.

5. What technological advancements are reshaping Tax Disputes law and how can clients benefit from them?

Technology is reshaping Greek tax practice through myDATA, electronic invoicing, e-filing and the increasing use of data analytics by the Tax Administration. These tools enable the authorities to identify discrepancies more quickly, but they also allow businesses to detect and correct inconsistencies before they develop into formal disputes.

Artificial intelligence and document-management systems can assist lawyers and clients in organising large files, creating transaction timelines, identifying missing documents and comparing accounting records with tax submissions. Cloud-based accounting and digital property-management tools are particularly useful for businesses and international investors who need to monitor their obligations remotely.

The main benefit is a shift from reactive defence to preventive tax-risk management. However, technology does not replace legal judgment. Automated results must be reviewed by professionals, particularly where the issue concerns the commercial substance of a transaction, the interpretation of legislation or the reliability of evidence.

6. Describe a particularly interesting or complex matter you have advised on recently

We recently represented a group of taxpayers in proceedings concerning the taxation of profits arising from the construction and sale of several residential properties. The tax authorities considered that the taxpayers had conducted a systematic commercial activity through an “informal company” and assessed income tax, solidarity contribution and penalties on the basis that this entity had failed to submit tax returns. The authorities also relied on the fifteen-year limitation period applicable in cases involving the failure to file a tax return.

Following the rejection of the taxpayers’ administrative recourse and their action before the Administrative Court of Appeal of Athens, we represented them before the Council of State. The central issue was whether an “informal company”, allegedly formed tacitly through the joint exercise of a commercial activity by several individuals, could constitute an independent and autonomous taxable person under the Income Tax Code then in force.

The Council of State accepted our arguments and held that the statutory enumeration of the persons subject to income tax was exhaustive. In light of the constitutional principles of legality and certainty of taxation, as well as the requirements of legal certainty, the relevant provisions had to be interpreted strictly. Accordingly, a legal formation such as an “informal company”, which was not expressly identified in the applicable legislation as a person subject to income tax, could not be treated as an independent taxpayer by analogy or through an expansive interpretation of the law.

The Court further held that the profits arising from the relevant property transactions could not be taxed as income of the alleged “informal company”. Since that entity was not a taxable person and could not be regarded as having an obligation to file an income tax return, the extended fifteen-year limitation period could not apply. The Council of State therefore annulled the judgment of the Administrative Court of Appeal and, exercising its own jurisdiction, annulled the relevant tax assessments concerning income tax and solidarity contribution, together with the associated penalties and interest.

The judgment is particularly significant because it affirms that no person or legal formation may be subjected to taxation unless the legislature has expressly included it within the relevant statutory provisions. It also confirms that the tax authorities cannot create a separate taxable entity through the factual characterisation of a commercial relationship as an “informal company”, nor rely on such characterisation in order to extend the limitation period applicable to the assessment of tax liabilities.

This matter required a detailed examination of the constitutional principle of legality of taxation, the provisions of the Income Tax Code and the case law of the Council of State concerning the exhaustive nature of the statutory list of taxable persons. It also demonstrated the importance of distinguishing between the existence of a commercial activity and the separate question of whether the entity allegedly carrying out that activity has been validly recognised by law as a taxable person.