English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The commented judgement concerns the taxation of acquisition of immovable property by inheritance division. In the applicant’s opinion dissolution of co-ownership is not an acquisition of assets if it is within the share which the former co-owners had in the common property and was carried out without any repayments or surcharges. If the acquisition of one-half of the property occurred upon the death of the testator, but through the subsequent abolition of co-ownership, the applicant acquired nothing more than what he already owned, the abolition of co-ownership does not constitute an acquisition and has no tax consequences. According to the tax authority, this position is incorrect. The applicant acquired half of the share in the property by way of inheritance and division of inheritance and a half share in the property by way of abolition of co-ownership. The administrative courts have held that the tax authority’s position is incorrect. In administrative cases, it may be necessary to use external systemic interpretation and reference by the administrative authorities to the relevant provisions of civil law. In the Supreme Administrative Court’s opinion, point of the dispute in this case is based on the conclusion what date should have been taken as the date of acquisition of the property (interest in the property). Resolution of this issue required a detailed analysis of the provisions of the Civil Code. Although, not all relevant issues have been considered by the Voivodeship Administrative Court, the decision of the court of first instance is in fact lawful. The gloss is approving and declares that the position taken in the judgement of the Supreme Administrative Court is correct.

studia iuridica lublinensia

Opodatkowanie nabycia nieruchomości w drodze działu spadku. Glosa do wyroku Naczelnego Sądu Administracyjnego z dnia 13 października 2015 r. (II FSK 2133/13, LEX nr 1808541)