The year ending 2011 marked a series of changes in tax legislation driven by the need to boost taxable income but also to implement structural measures to improve fiscal effectiveness, transparency and control."I can summarise; taxes, taxes, taxes," ...
[more]
The year ending 2011 marked a series of changes in tax legislation driven by the need to boost taxable income but also to implement structural measures to improve fiscal effectiveness, transparency and control.
"I can summarise; taxes, taxes, taxes," said John Dryllerakis, a parter of Dryllerakis & Associates, adding: "The taxes are so extensive but all have a common denominator. The trend in the past was not to reduce expense of the state but they believe they can still maintain the public sector as it was and draw from the private sector the deficit."
In the midst of the Greek debt crisis, there is a renewed effort from the government to enforce compliance. "The tax environment is very unstable, the economic climate has necessitated a greater reliance on tax revenue. Taxes are changing in a very quick manner, this produces work but it also produces uncertainty and uncertainly is the greater factor here," said George Naskaris, partner at TJ Koutalidis Law Office.
Part of these changes includes an increase on withholding tax for dividends distributed, as from 2012. This means distribution between domestic companies now stands at 25%. This is a 4% increase compared with 2011.
Some changes from 2011 have continued to impact the market and shift emphasis of the type of work carried out. In July 2011 the government instructed companies to be audited by certified auditors. According to this legislation, corporations and limited liability companies that are audited must issue tax certificates identifying the company's tax position. "This has led to a shift of work from tax auditors to certified tax auditors," said one adviser.
Lawyers say they have also witnessed a shift in tax litigation. They say pressure on the tax authorities to "collect, collect, collect" has led to an increase in dispute resolution. "Their assessment is not as well justified as it should be so a lot of disputes arise because of the aggressive assessment," explained George Mavraganis of KPMG.
[hide]