{"id":151120,"date":"2026-10-12T11:31:14","date_gmt":"2026-10-12T11:31:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legal500.com\/guides\/?post_type=hot_topics&p=151120"},"modified":"2026-10-12T13:54:45","modified_gmt":"2026-10-12T13:54:45","slug":"tax-litigation-in-greece-limitation-periods-and-joint-and-several-liability","status":"publish","type":"hot_topics","link":"https:\/\/www.legal500.com\/guides\/hot-topic\/tax-litigation-in-greece-limitation-periods-and-joint-and-several-liability\/","title":{"rendered":"Tax Litigation in Greece: Limitation Periods and Joint and Several Liability"},"content":{"rendered":"

Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\n

Two of the most significant issues in contemporary Greek tax litigation concern, first, the period within which the State may issue and serve a tax assessment and, secondly, the conditions under which the tax liabilities of a legal person may be imposed personally, and jointly and severally, on individuals connected with its management or administration.<\/p>\n

These issues are of considerable practical importance. They affect a large number of taxpayers, businesses, directors and members of boards of directors, and have generated substantial case law before the Council of State and the administrative courts.<\/p>\n

A common feature of both areas is the need for strict application of the principle of legality. The State may impose a tax, or seek payment of a company\u2019s tax liability, only where the statutory conditions applicable at the relevant time are satisfied.<\/p>\n

Part I \u2013 Limitation of the State\u2019s Tax Claims<\/strong><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. The five-year rule<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    The principal provisions governing the statutes of limitation rule are currently contained in Article 37 of Law 5104\/2024, which replaced Article 36 of Law 4987\/2022 and, previously, Article 36 of Law 4174\/2013 – the Greek Tax Procedure Code.<\/p>\n

    As a general rule, the Tax Administration may serve an act determining tax\u2014whether an administrative, estimated or corrective assessment\u2014within five years from the end of the year in which the deadline for filing the relevant tax return expired. Where more than one return is required, the five-year period runs from the end of the year in which the deadline for filing the return for the last tax period of that year expired.<\/p>\n

    The limitation period concerns the State\u2019s substantive power to issue and serve a valid tax assessment. It is not merely a procedural deadline for completing an audit. Once the applicable period has expired, the State may not, as a general rule, impose tax in respect of the relevant tax period.<\/p>\n

    The following matters must therefore be established with precision:<\/p>\n

      \n
    • the relevant tax year or accounting period;<\/li>\n
    • the deadline for filing the relevant return;<\/li>\n
    • the date on which the limitation period commenced and expired;<\/li>\n
    • the date on which the assessment was issued; and<\/li>\n
    • most importantly, the date on which the assessment was lawfully served on the taxpayer.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

      The mere issuance of an assessment before expiry of the limitation period is not sufficient if the assessment was served after that period had expired. This is an important development under the current Tax Procedure Code. Under the previous framework, the question was generally examined by reference to the date of issuance; Article 37 now expressly links the effectiveness of the State\u2019s action to service on the taxpayer.<\/p>\n

      In practice, the statutes of limitation rule is therefore an issue that should be examined at the outset of every dispute involving an earlier tax year. It is not necessarily appropriate to begin with the substantive merits of the assessment. If the State\u2019s right has already become time-barred, that issue may dispose of the case without requiring a full examination of the underlying tax treatment.<\/p>\n

        \n
      1. Plenary Decision No. 1738\/2017 of the Council of State<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        In the past, the Greek State took the position that the period for auditing taxpayers and imposing tax could be extended through subsequent legislative measures.<\/p>\n

        The Plenary of the Council of State, in Decision No. 1738\/2017, imposed clear constitutional limits on that practice. It held that provisions extending the five-year limitation period were contrary to the principle of legal certainty, which derives from the rule-of-law principle, and to paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 78 of the Greek Constitution, where they had not been enacted by statute no later than the year following the year to which the tax liability related.<\/p>\n

        The decision may be summarized in four central propositions.<\/p>\n

        First, the State\u2019s tax claim must be subject to a foreseeable time limit. Taxpayers must be able to determine with reasonable certainty when their exposure to a tax assessment will come to an end.<\/p>\n

        Secondly, any extension of the limitation period must be established by an Act of Parliament. It cannot be created merely by an administrative or regulatory act.<\/p>\n

        Thirdly, the relevant legislative framework must comply with the constitutional restrictions arising from Article 78. The legislature cannot repeatedly revive or extend a tax claim after the taxpayer\u2019s liability has become subject to a period of limitation.<\/p>\n

        Fourthly, continuous and repeated extensions concerning earlier tax periods are not constitutionally acceptable where they effectively deprive the limitation rule of practical effect.<\/p>\n

        Decision No. 1738\/2017 did not exclude every specific statutory extension. It did, however, exclude general, unpredictable and retroactive extensions that would leave the taxpayer exposed to tax assessment for an essentially indefinite period.<\/p>\n

        The decision remains one of the principal reference points in Greek tax litigation. It has influenced both the interpretation of later statutory provisions and the assessment of whether transitional arrangements comply with the constitutional requirements of legal certainty and Article 78 of the Greek Constitution.<\/p>\n

          \n
        1. Specific extensions under Article 37<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

          Article 37 of Law 5104\/2024 provides for specific circumstances in which the five-year period may be extended. By way of example, an extension of one year may apply after expiry of the five-year period where, during the fifth year, the taxpayer files an initial or amended return or new information comes to the attention of the Tax Administration.<\/p>\n

          Other situations include the following:<\/p>\n

            \n
          • a request for information is submitted to a foreign tax or customs authority;<\/li>\n
          • an administrative recourse, judicial recourse or other judicial remedy is filed and a decision has been issued;<\/li>\n
          • a mutual agreement procedure is available or initiated;<\/li>\n
          • an application is submitted for the cancellation or amendment of an assessment; or<\/li>\n
          • a complaint or report is examined and it is established that the failure to audit or assess tax was attributable, at least in part, to collusion between the taxpayer and an official of the auditing authority.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

            These extensions are not unlimited in scope. As a general rule, they apply only to the specific tax issue to which the return, new information, request for information, appeal or other procedure relates.<\/p>\n

            This limitation is significant. The Tax Administration cannot rely on an isolated event to keep an entire tax case open without demonstrating a connection between that event and the specific issue affected by the statutory extension. A request for information concerning one transaction, for example, cannot automatically extend the limitation period for all tax matters relating to the taxpayer or the relevant tax year.<\/p>\n

            The same principle applies to litigation. Where the law connects an extension with the filing of an administrative recourse or judicial recourse, the extension concerns the matter covered by that procedure. It does not create a general and unlimited power to reassess unrelated aspects of the taxpayer\u2019s affairs.<\/p>\n

            The statutory provisions should therefore be examined together with the factual record. It is necessary to identify not only whether one of the events listed in Article 37 occurred, but also when it occurred, what issue it concerned and whether the assessment was issued and served within the additional period provided by law.<\/p>\n

              \n
            1. The ten-year period and new information<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

              The ten-year period is an exception to the general five-year rule. It may apply, among other cases, where the taxpayer has failed to file a return or where, after expiry of the five-year period, new information comes to the attention of the Tax Administration which could not have been known during the initial period and which demonstrates that the tax liability is higher than the amount previously determined.<\/p>\n

              The central issue is what qualifies as \u201cnew\u201d or \u201csupplementary\u201d information. It is not sufficient that the Tax Administration actually examined an item only after the five-year period. The relevant information must have been genuinely new and objectively unavailable, or incapable of being known, during the original period.<\/p>\n

              The case law has held, depending on the facts of each case, that the following do not necessarily constitute supplementary information:<\/p>\n

                \n
              • bank statements, balances and movements in domestic bank accounts;<\/li>\n
              • the existence of a foreign bank account funded by accounts in Greece or used to fund accounts in Greece;<\/li>\n
              • a third-party complaint that does not establish the existence of undeclared income; and<\/li>\n
              • an information report prepared by another auditing authority where it is based on an examination of bank movements that was already an available and ordinary method of tax audit.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

                The decisive question is whether the information was genuinely new and objectively unavailable during the initial five-year period, or whether the Tax Administration merely made delayed use of information that it could and should have obtained earlier.<\/p>\n

                This distinction reflects the constitutional purpose of limitation periods. The State must have adequate time to conduct tax audits, but it cannot preserve an otherwise time-barred claim by recharacterizing ordinary audit material as supplementary evidence simply because it was collected or analysed late.<\/p>\n

                The assessment must also be confined to the issue supported by the new information. New evidence concerning one category of income or one transaction cannot automatically justify reopening every aspect of the taxpayer\u2019s affairs.<\/p>\n

                  \n
                1. Administrative assistance from a foreign authority<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                  A specific category of extension concerns requests for information submitted to a foreign tax or customs authority.<\/p>\n

                  For the relevant provision to apply, four conditions must be satisfied:<\/p>\n

                    \n
                  1. the Tax Administration must have submitted the request within the original five-year period;<\/li>\n
                  2. the information must have reached the Tax Administration after expiry of that period;<\/li>\n
                  3. the extension must relate exclusively to the issue covered by the request; and<\/li>\n
                  4. the tax assessment must have been served within the additional period prescribed by law, which extends for one year from the date on which the information was received from the foreign authority.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                    Recent case law has clarified that, if the foreign information reaches the Tax Administration before expiry of the original five-year period, the additional one-year extension is not triggered. The extension applies only where the request was submitted in time\u2014namely, within the original five-year period\u2014and the information was received after that period had expired.<\/p>\n

                    The Tax Administration must therefore be able to establish:<\/p>\n

                      \n
                    • when the request was submitted;<\/li>\n
                    • which authority submitted it;<\/li>\n
                    • when the information was received by the Greek Tax Administration;<\/li>\n
                    • what information was requested; and<\/li>\n
                    • how that information relates to the specific assessment issued.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

                      A general reference to administrative assistance is not sufficient. Nor can the Tax Administration rely on the mere fact that information was exchanged between authorities without proving that the statutory conditions for extending the limitation period were satisfied.<\/p>\n

                      This approach is particularly important in cross-border cases, where the exchange of information may take place close to the end of the limitation period. The timing of the request and the timing of receipt are legally decisive. The taxpayer should be entitled to challenge an assessment where the request was submitted after the five-year period or where the information was received before the period expired and therefore did not trigger the additional extension.<\/p>\n

                      The assessment must also be served within the applicable extended period, namely the one-year period. Even where the conditions for an extension are satisfied, the extension does not give the State an unlimited period in which to act.<\/p>\n

                        \n
                      1. Tax evasion and the transitional ten-year period<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                        For accounting periods 2012 and 2013 and tax years 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017, a provision was introduced under which an administrative, estimated or corrective tax assessment in cases of tax evasion could be issued within ten years from the end of the year in which the deadline for filing the relevant tax return expired.<\/p>\n

                        That possibility has been held unconstitutional by the administrative courts because it extends the limitation period for the State\u2019s tax claims relating to tax years and accounting periods predating the year preceding publication of Law 4646\/2019. According to the jurisprudence of the Administrative Courts, the provision was held contrary to the principle of legal certainty and to paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 78 of the Greek Constitution.<\/p>\n

                        The reasoning is not merely that the provision is doubtful or should be interpreted narrowly. The Courts have taken a position against the retroactive extension itself. The relevant transitional rule cannot constitutionally be used to prolong the State\u2019s power to assess tax for the specified earlier periods after the applicable limitation period has expired.<\/p>\n

                        There is also a further chronological difficulty. A finding that tax evasion has occurred presupposes a valid tax audit and an assessment based on that audit. The finding of tax evasion cannot itself be used retrospectively to extend the period during which the State was entitled to conduct the audit and issue the assessment. Otherwise, the Tax Administration would be able to extend limitation by relying on an infringement that could no longer be validly established after the original limitation period had expired.<\/p>\n

                        This would produce a circular result: the State would first rely on the existence of tax evasion to extend the limitation period, while the finding of tax evasion itself would depend on the State having acted within a period in which it still had power to audit and assess the relevant tax.<\/p>\n

                        Taxpayers who have been or are being audited for accounting periods 2012 and 2013 and tax years 2014 to 2017 may therefore challenge the application of the ten-year limitation period where the assessment is based exclusively on the transitional rule described above.<\/p>\n

                        In such cases, the challenge should address both the constitutional defect in the retroactive extension and the requirement that any finding of tax evasion must rest on a valid and timely exercise of the State\u2019s audit and assessment powers.<\/p>\n

                        The matter is now pending before the Supreme Court, whose verdict is expected to irrevocably resolve it.<\/p>\n

                          \n
                        1. Practical significance of the statutes of limitation rule<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                          In every audit concerning an earlier tax period, the following matters should be examined separately:<\/p>\n

                            \n
                          • the exact date on which the original five-year period expires;<\/li>\n
                          • the date on which the assessment was issued and lawfully served;<\/li>\n
                          • whether a specific statutory provision provides for an extension;<\/li>\n
                          • the date on which any request for administrative assistance was submitted;<\/li>\n
                          • the date on which the relevant information reached the Tax Administration;<\/li>\n
                          • whether the alleged new information was genuinely new and not merely belatedly used;<\/li>\n
                          • whether the assessment is confined to the issue covered by the relevant extension; and<\/li>\n
                          • whether the statutory provision claimed by the Tax Administration is constitutionally acceptable.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

                            Limitation should be reviewed before the substantive merits of the tax dispute are developed. If the State\u2019s claim is time-barred, the taxpayer should raise the statutes of limitation rule as an independent ground and should not confine the defence to an objection concerning only the amount of tax or the calculation of the assessment.<\/p>\n

                            From a litigation perspective, the statutes of limitation rule is often a threshold issue. It may eliminate the need for a detailed examination of accounting evidence, the interpretation of the underlying transaction or the existence of a tax advantage. It also affects settlement strategy: a taxpayer should not assess a settlement proposal without first determining whether the State had a legally enforceable claim at the time the assessment was issued and served.<\/p>\n

                            Our firm has handled cases of this nature on behalf of taxpayers and has secured favorable decisions from both the Dispute Resolution Directorate and the Administrative Courts, in which the constitutional and statutory arguments concerning the expiry of the limitation period were upheld. In one such matter, the Administrative Court held that the five-year limitation period had expired before the assessment was issued and served, and that the one-year extension available under the administrative assistance provision did not apply because the information from the foreign authority had been received before the expiry of the original five-year period. The Court also noted, in that context, that the transitional ten-year period applicable in cases of alleged tax evasion could not in any event be applied, as it was contrary to the principle of legal certainty and to paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 78 of the Greek Constitution.<\/p>\n

                            Part II \u2013 Joint and Several Liability for Corporate Tax Debts<\/strong><\/p>\n

                              \n
                            1. The statutory framework<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                              Article 49 of Law 5104\/2024, which replaced Article 50 of Law 4987\/2022 and, previously, Article 50 of Law 4174\/2013 – Greek Tax Procedure Code, governs the personal and joint and several liability of individuals for certain tax debts owed by legal persons and legal entities.<\/p>\n

                              The decisive issue is not simply whether an individual had some connection with the company. The question is whether, at the time the liability arose or became due, the specific conditions of the applicable statutory regime were satisfied.<\/p>\n

                              The provisions must be applied restrictively, since they constitute an exception to the rule, because they impose personal joint and several liability for tax debts that initially arose in the name of the legal person. The Tax Administration must therefore identify the relevant legal basis, the relevant period, the relevant tax debt and the particular facts supporting liability.<\/p>\n

                              This analysis is especially important where the company\u2019s tax debts arose under an earlier statutory regime. The applicable law cannot be selected solely by reference to the date on which the Tax Administration later issued an act against the individual. The time at which the corporate tax debt arose or became due is central to determining the legal framework.<\/p>\n

                                \n
                              1. The pre-2019 regime<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                Before Article 50 of Law 4174\/2013 was amended by Article 34 of Law 4646\/2019, joint and several liability was linked to a limited list of capacities, including the capacity of director, president, manager, managing director, person entrusted with management or liquidator.<\/p>\n

                                The previous regime also provided for specific forms of liability concerning withholding taxes and taxes passed on to customers, as well as certain categories of shareholders or partners upon the dissolution of the company.<\/p>\n

                                The Tax Administration was required to establish that the individual fell within one of the capacities expressly referred to in the applicable provision. Mere membership of a board of directors, ownership of shares or a general corporate connection was not sufficient.<\/p>\n

                                This distinction is particularly important in cases involving non-executive directors. A formal title or membership of a corporate body did not, without more, demonstrate that the individual had the legal or actual powers required by the applicable provision.<\/p>\n

                                However, once a capacity explicitly mentioned in the law was identified, there were no grounds to challenge joint and several liability through arguments related to lack of fault.<\/p>\n

                                The pre-2019 regime also did not permit a general inquiry into whether an individual had exercised de facto management where that category was not included in the applicable statutory framework.<\/p>\n

                                  \n
                                1. The amendment introduced by Law 4646\/2019<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                  Article 34 of Law 4646\/2019 materially amended Article 50 of Law 4174\/2013, and the new regime was also carried over into Article 50 of Law 4987\/2022 and the current Article 49 of Law 5104\/2024.<\/p>\n

                                  The amended provision covers, among others, executive presidents, directors, general managers, managers, managing directors, persons entrusted with management, liquidators and persons who in practice exercise the management or administration of a legal person or legal entity.<\/p>\n

                                  Under the amended regime, three conditions must be satisfied cumulatively:<\/p>\n

                                    \n
                                  • the individual must have held one of the capacities specified by law;<\/li>\n
                                  • the relevant tax debt must have become due during the individual\u2019s term of office, or must relate to a tax period during which the relevant statutory conditions were satisfied; and<\/li>\n
                                  • the failure to pay or remit the tax debt must have been attributable to that individual.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

                                    The 2019 amendment therefore changed the structure of liability in two respects.<\/p>\n

                                    First, it made fault an express and necessary condition. The fact that a debt became due during a person\u2019s term of office is not, by itself, sufficient.<\/p>\n

                                    Secondly, it expressly included individuals who in practice (de facto) exercise management or administration. This category may be relevant where the person who actually controls the company\u2019s affairs is not the formal office-holder.<\/p>\n

                                    The introduction of the de facto management category, however, cannot be applied retrospectively in order to impose liability on a person who would not have been liable under the previous regime. A subsequent provision that broadens the class of potentially liable individuals cannot be used as a disadvantageous legal basis for an earlier corporate debt.<\/p>\n

                                      \n
                                    1. The temporal application of Article 34 of Law 4646\/2019<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                      Corporate debts that arose or became due before the publication of Law 4646\/2019 must, in principle, be assessed under the statutory regime applicable at the relevant time.<\/p>\n

                                      Paragraph 29 of Article 66 of Law 4646\/2019 allowed the amended provisions to be considered in relation to earlier debts, but only where the new provisions were genuinely more favorable to the individual concerned. Their application is therefore possible only to the extent that they remove or reduce liability that already existed under the previous law.<\/p>\n

                                      Article 34 of Law 4646\/2019 cannot be invoked to broaden retrospectively the scope of joint and several liability. In particular, the amended provision cannot be used to establish, for the first time, the liability of an individual on the basis that he or she was a de facto manager or administrator where that category did not create liability under the statutory regime applicable to the relevant period.<\/p>\n

                                      This principle is especially important for corporate debts arising before 12 December 2019, the date of publication of Law 4646\/2019. If the individual was not liable under the previous version of Article 50 of Law 4174\/2013, the 2019 amendment cannot operate as a new and more onerous basis for personal tax liability.<\/p>\n

                                      The appropriate analysis therefore has two stages. First, the authority and the court must determine whether liability existed under the law applicable when the debt arose or became due. Only then may the more favorable aspects of the later law be considered. The later law cannot be used to create liability first and then described as favorable merely because it also contains a fault requirement.<\/p>\n

                                      This approach protects the temporal operation of tax legislation. A person must be able to determine, at the relevant time, whether the position held and the conduct undertaken may result in personal exposure to the tax debts of the company.<\/p>\n

                                        \n
                                      1. The position of non-executive directors<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                        The position of a non-executive member of a board of directors illustrates the importance of applying the correct temporal and substantive framework.<\/p>\n

                                        Membership of a board of directors does not, by itself, establish joint and several liability. It must be examined whether the individual had actual powers of representation or management, whether corporate powers had been delegated to him or her, whether the individual participated in decisions concerning the company\u2019s tax obligations and whether he or she in practice exercised management functions.<\/p>\n

                                        In a recent matter handled by our firm, the company\u2019s tax debts had arisen between 11 March 2016 and 13 July 2017. The individual concerned had served as a non-executive member of the company\u2019s board of directors.<\/p>\n

                                        The court held that:<\/p>\n

                                          \n
                                        • the applicable regime was Article 50 as it stood before the amendment introduced by Law 4646\/2019;<\/li>\n
                                        • Article 34 of Law 4646\/2019 could not be used to establish liability for the first time on the basis that the individual was a de facto manager;<\/li>\n
                                        • the individual did not fall within the limited category of liable persons under the former version of Article 50; and<\/li>\n
                                        • no corporate powers of representation or management had been delegated to the individual.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

                                          The joint and several liability was accordingly annulled.<\/p>\n

                                          The decision confirms that the Tax Administration cannot rely on general statements regarding an individual\u2019s participation in the company\u2019s operation. It must prove the specific capacity required by the applicable law and identify the actual powers exercised by the individual.<\/p>\n

                                          It is also insufficient to argue that the board of directors is, in general terms, the company\u2019s management and representative body. The relevant question is whether the particular individual had been entrusted with powers that were capable of establishing liability under the statute applicable to the relevant period.<\/p>\n

                                          Where the individual was a non-executive director with no delegated management or representation powers, and the corporate debts predated Law 4646\/2019, the later statutory category of de facto management cannot be used to create personal liability retrospectively.<\/p>\n

                                            \n
                                          1. Fault and the burden of proof<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                            Under the current regime, fault is an independent and necessary condition of joint and several liability. It is not sufficient that the tax debt became due while the individual was formally connected with the company. The failure to pay or remit the debt must also be attributable to that individual.<\/p>\n

                                            The individual bears the burden of proving the absence of fault. This does not, however, relieve the Tax Administration of its duty to issue a specific and adequately reasoned assessment of liability.<\/p>\n

                                            The relevant act should identify:<\/p>\n

                                              \n
                                            • the capacity held by the individual;<\/li>\n
                                            • the period during which that capacity was held;<\/li>\n
                                            • the particular tax debt;<\/li>\n
                                            • the date on which the debt became due; and<\/li>\n
                                            • the non-payment during the period in which the individual had the capacity.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

                                              The absence of fault claimed by the individual may be supported, depending on the facts, by evidence of:<\/p>\n

                                                \n
                                              • an absence of management or representation powers;<\/li>\n
                                              • lack of access to the company\u2019s financial information;<\/li>\n
                                              • resignation or lawful removal before the debt became due;<\/li>\n
                                              • the fact that another person actually exercised management;<\/li>\n
                                              • a recorded disagreement concerning the relevant decision;<\/li>\n
                                              • a lack of authority to instruct payment or arrange compliance; or<\/li>\n
                                              • an objective inability to exercise the relevant functions.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

                                                The assessment is fact-specific. Formal corporate status, actual authority and causal responsibility must not be conflated.<\/p>\n

                                                At the same time, individuals should not assume that a non-executive title will automatically exclude liability under every possible factual scenario. If the evidence demonstrates that the person in fact exercised management or controlled the relevant decisions, the analysis may be different under the regime applicable to the relevant period. The decisive point is that liability must be established under the correct statute and on the basis of concrete evidence.<\/p>\n

                                                  \n
                                                1. Practical consequences<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                                  Where personal liability is attributed to an individual, the following matters should be examined separately:<\/p>\n

                                                    \n
                                                  1. which tax debt is covered by the assessment;<\/li>\n
                                                  2. which statutory regime applied when the debt arose or became due;<\/li>\n
                                                  3. which capacity is attributed to the individual;<\/li>\n
                                                  4. whether that capacity was recognized under the applicable regime;<\/li>\n
                                                  5. whether the individual possessed actual management or representation powers; and<\/li>\n
                                                  6. whether fault in the non-payment has been established.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                                    The individual should also examine whether the assessment distinguishes between:<\/p>\n

                                                      \n
                                                    • the underlying corporate tax debt;<\/li>\n
                                                    • the date on which the debt became due;<\/li>\n
                                                    • the period during which the individual held the relevant position;<\/li>\n
                                                    • any subsequent interest, penalties or administrative sanctions; and<\/li>\n
                                                    • the factual basis for attributing those amounts to the individual.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

                                                      As already mentioned, the retrospective application of Article 34 of Law 4646\/2019 cannot broaden the scope of joint and several liability. Later provisions may be considered in relation to earlier debts only where they are genuinely more favorable and remove liability that already existed. They cannot create a new basis for personal assessment.<\/p>\n

                                                      This distinction is not merely theoretical. It may determine whether a director, non-executive board member or other individual remains personally exposed to a substantial corporate tax debt. It may also affect the validity of enforcement measures taken against the individual and the availability of administrative or judicial remedies.<\/p>\n

                                                      In practice, individuals who receive an assessment of personal liability should obtain the complete administrative file and review the corporate records, board minutes, delegations of authority, registry filings, resignation documents, tax correspondence and payment instructions. The question is not simply whether the person held an office. It is whether, under the correct law, the person had the relevant capacity, during the relevant period, and whether the non-payment was attributable to him or her.<\/p>\n

                                                      Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n

                                                      The statutes of limitation rules and joint and several liability are two particularly important areas of Greek tax litigation.<\/p>\n

                                                      As regards the statutes of limitation rules, the principal rule is a five-year period. Extensions and the ten-year period are exceptions and can apply only where the statutory conditions are strictly satisfied. Plenary Decision No. 1738\/2017 of the Council of State remains a principal point of reference because it places legal certainty at the centre of the analysis and rejects unpredictable and retroactive extensions of the period for tax assessment.<\/p>\n

                                                      The practical significance of that principle is considerable. The State must act within a legally defined and foreseeable period. Where it relies on new information, the information must genuinely qualify as new. Where it relies on administrative assistance, the request must have been submitted in time and the information must have been received after expiry of the initial five-year period. Where it relies on a transitional ten-year rule for accounting periods 2012 and 2013 and tax years 2014 to 2017, the constitutional limits identified by the Administrative Courts must be respected.<\/p>\n

                                                      As regards joint and several liability, the decisive factors are the statutory regime applicable when the corporate debt arose or became due, the specific capacity held by the individual and the existence of fault.<\/p>\n

                                                      Article 34 of Law 4646\/2019 cannot be used to establish liability retrospectively through the newly introduced category of the de facto manager where such liability could not have been established under the previous version of Article 50. The amended regime may apply to earlier debts only to the extent that it is genuinely more favorable and removes liability that already existed.<\/p>\n

                                                      The practical value of these principles is clear. Taxpayers should examine the statutes of limitation rules before addressing the merits of an assessment. Individuals facing personal liability should separately examine the relevant period, the applicable statute, the capacity attributed to them, the actual powers they held and whether fault has been established.<\/p>\n

                                                      A corporate relationship or formal membership of a board of directors is not, by itself, sufficient to impose personal tax liability. Equally, the Tax Administration cannot preserve an expired assessment power by relying on information that was already available or by invoking a later statutory provision that expands the class of persons who may be held liable.<\/p>\n

                                                      The protection offered by Greek tax litigation is therefore not limited to disputes about the calculation of tax. It also extends to the legality of the State\u2019s action in time and to the statutory conditions under which liability may be transferred from the company to an individual. Careful analysis of those threshold issues can determine the outcome of a case before the substantive tax questions are fully litigated.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","class_list":["post-151120","hot_topics","type-hot_topics","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/hot_topics\/151120","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/hot_topics"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/hot_topics"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=151120"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}