Mohamadreza Abbasi, Mansour Eshghpour,
Volume 30, Issue 54 (9-2022)
Abstract
The Tax Law includes an institution called "time lapse", in our legal system, there is another institution called "statutory deadline". Despite to the "statutory deadline", dispute settlement entities are not allowed to investigate time lapse without a request by the relevant taxpayer, and the restitution of paid taxes would not be possible through invoking this matter. Here, the question that arises is whether the above-mentioned institution has been called "time lapse" by negligence and whether this is in fact a statutory deadline? Although under Article (270) of the Tax Law, the demand for taxes after the expiration of the prescriptive period is considered as a breach of the law, and the supervision forces are allowed to deal with this case. However, this research, which is based on the descriptive-analytical method, reveals that this matter is due to the administrative nature of tax laws and it seems that tax dispute settlement boards are not allowed to investigate this issue without a request by the relevant taxpayer. Thus, the term "time lapse" is selected accurately. It seems that the submission of the bill of tax after the expiration of the statutory deadline would not interrupt the prescriptive period and the restitution of received taxes would not be possible. In addition, the issuance and notification of a tax to another source will cause the interruption of the prescriptive period.
