“Manufacture of technical and industrial textiles”, CAEN code 1396.
Period audited: 01.01.2012-30.09.2020.
The main observations of the tax inspection observations were:
As regards corporate income tax, the following non-deductible expenses were established:
Interest expenses – the amount of x lei, related to the loan contracted from the company P from the non-EU area;
Expenses with customer complaints – the amount of x lei, recorded in the accounting records, representing finished products sold to customers, found by the latter to be defective products and which were not returned to the manufacturer S.C. X S.R.L.;
The expense in the total amount of x lei, representing losses resulting from the production process, thus not being adjusted the residual consumption in the production process exceeding the maximum times specified in the internal procedures;
Also, the tax inspection authorities established the average value (central market trend) as the transfer price at the market price and accordingly proceeded to adjust the operating income realized from transactions with affiliated companies, and an additional operating income was determined when calculating the taxable profit for the period 2014-2018 in the amount of x lei.
As regards VAT, the following were established:
The audited company did not correctly apply the tax treatment in terms of VAT for the goods found to be types under management, i.e. adjustment of deductible VAT in the amount of x lei related to the losses under management;
VAT in the amount of x lei, related to some invoices representing the reversal of goods on the grounds of quantity, without being followed by a return to the goodsman and their receipt at the company S.C. X S.R.L., totaling x lei.
– VAT in the total amount of x lei, related to the rebates of finished products resulting from complaints received from customers for goods that could not be repaired and waste resulting from the production process;
Additional VAT collected in the total amount of x lei, related to triangulated transactions – which S.C. X S.R.L. had as supplier (SM1). The transaction contracts were concluded with the affiliated company P from Member State X, which was the buyer-seller (SM2) and EU companies were the beneficiary of the subsequent transaction (SM3). For the “triangular” supplies, the VAT exemption for the transactions carried out by the company to S.C. P from Member State X was not justified.
Source: ANAF