Consequences of a sole director’s non-attendance at the general meeting
In this case, it is analysed whether such absence can lead to the annulment of the resolutions adopted, especially when it is alleged that the
In a recent ruling, the DGT has allowed that environmental deductions be proven withing the maximum period of 15 years, including the investments made in years that have been verified.
The relevant issue refers to the deductions for investments in assets intended for environmental protection for which the public authorities had to issue a validation certificate, regulated in article 39 of the repealed Royal Legislative Decree 4/2004, of 5 March, approving the revised text of the Corporate Income Tax Law. With the repeal of Law 27/2014, of 27 November, investments can only be accredited up to the period ending on 31 December 2014.
In the binding ruling V0012-24 of 13 February, the DGT has modified the position of the most recent consultations V1511-22 and V1510-22, in which the rectification of the original return was required, and only in respect of non-prescribed periods.
Through this ruling, the DGT reverts to the more favorable position of rulings V3399-13, V1509-14, V2807-15, allowing environmental deductions to be credited in subsequent periods (up to the maximum period of 15 years) to those in which the investment was made, on the condition that the certificate of validation has been requested before the start of the tax return period.
In addition to the aforementioned maximum period of 15 years for accreditation without the need to rectify the return, the DGT also adds that accreditation is not prevented by the fact that the tax year has been verified by the AEAT (Spanish Tax Agency).
Moreover, the 10-year period for the authorities to verify the deduction will be calculated from the day following the end of the period for submitting the return in which the deduction has been applied.
In this case, it is analysed whether such absence can lead to the annulment of the resolutions adopted, especially when it is alleged that the
The TEAC clarifies that the representation of the managed company in other group companies does not form part of the inherent functions of the position
It is not possible to request informative items with the purpose of requesting information on matters that are already included in the agenda of a