When sending money to bank accounts, it must be written in the explanation section why the money was sent. Otherwise, this money may not be defined in the related debt. In the example decision, the transfer of money to the lawyer’s account was not considered correct to be considered as a proxy fee, unless otherwise proved. You can review the sample decision.

Council of State 3. Department

Base Number: 2017/2173

Decision Number: 2021/1449

“Case Law Text”

T.C.
COUNSIL OF STATE
THIRD CIRCLE
Base No: 2017/2173
Decision No: 2021/1449

Appellant (defendant): … Tax Office/…
Acting: At. …

COUNTERPARTY (PLAINTIFF) : …
Acting: Av. …

Subject of the request : … regarding the application for appeal against the decision of the tax court … date and E:…, K:… … the District Administrative Court … the decision of the tax court … date and e:…, k:… is requested to be reviewed on appeal.

THE PROCESS OF TRIAL :
Tue Tue: on behalf of the plaintiff, who is a lawyer, according to the Tax Review Report, which includes determinations that he has excluded some of the income from the cases he has pursued within the scope of self-employment, one floor tax ziyai penalty income tax issued for 2010, one floor tax ziyai penalty temporary tax issued for all periods of the same year, and 353 of the Tax Procedure Code 213.Article 1.it relates to the request for the abolition of the special penalty for irregularities imposed in accordance with the paragraph.
The decision of the court of First Instance summary: the plaintiff, UYAP information obtained from the data in the path noted in the scope of the decision or closed in 2010 and the incident power of attorney attorney’s fee in the same year that contains all of the files were finished and the money has been invested in deposits of banks is charged and all Attorney’s fee assessment basis in the event it is understood that a difference has been reached by the courts of Dec with the decision given by the court upon the plaintiff to file the documents and information on file that follows the preponderance of the information and documents provided from, in the files followed by the plaintiff, it is possible to transfer money to the bank account for all kinds of work and transactions., since the contrary should be revealed by applying to the statements of the persons covered by the plaintiff’s proxy relationship, the tax and penalties subject to the lawsuit were removed on the grounds that there was no compliance with the law in the Levy made over the difference in the base found on the basis of incomplete examination and research, and in the special penalty for irregularities that were deducted.

Summary of the decision of the District Administrative Court: 45 of the Code of Administrative Proceedings No. 2577 on the grounds that the application for appeal is not considered to be in accordance with the procedure and law, which will ensure the cancellation of the decision of the Tax Court. Article 3. according to the paragraph, his refusal was decided.

Appellant’S claims: since it is determined in a concrete way that he has excluded some of his income from registration and declaration in the tax technique report organized against the plaintiff, there is no violation of the law in the levy and the special penalty for irregularities that have been deducted, it is desirable to overturn the decision.

Defense of the opposing side: no defense was given.

Opinion : with the rejection of the appeal request, it is thought that the decision in accordance with the procedure and law should be upheld.

ON BEHALF OF THE TURKISH NATION

After hearing the explanations of the examination Judge and reviewing the documents in the dossier, the third Department of the Council of State, which made the decision, discussed the need:
LEGAL EVALUATION:
The appeal of the final decisions of the district administrative courts is the 49th amendment of the Code of Administrative Procedure 2577. it is possible if one of the reasons in the article exists.
The decision examined by the appeal is in accordance with the procedure and law, and the reasons for the appeal put forward in the petition were not considered to require the decision to be overturned.
DECISION RESULT:
For reasons described;
1. Denial of Appeal,
2. … District Administrative Court … to uphold the decision of the tax litigation department … dated and numbered E:…, K:… ,
50 of the Code of Administrative Procedure No. 3.2577. in accordance with the article, it was unanimously decided on 22/03/2021 that the file should be sent to the court of First Instance, which makes the decision, ensuring that the parties are notified of this decision and a sample of it will be sent to the specified tax litigation office.