August 2026 Monthly Tax Briefing

1. By virtue of Decision A. 1160/2026, the Independent Authority of Public Revenues issued the list of preferential tax regime jurisdictions for 2024 within the meaning of par. 6 & 7 of Article 65 of Law 4172/2013.

1. By way of Decision 368/2026, the Council of State rejected an appeal filed by the Independent Authority for Public Revenue (AADE) against a decision by the Athens Administrative Court of Appeals, annulling the imposition of gift tax of more than €22.5m (main and supplementary tax) imposed on a company that was a shareholder of the television station. 

2. The tax authority had argued that, when in 2005 a single shareholder fully covered two capital increases by issuing shares at a premium (total premium of approximately €116.6m), he had informally gifted to the remaining four shareholders the capital gains that their shares were deemed to have acquired. 

3. The Council of State ruled (based also on Council of State Decisions 1698/2025 and 1699/2025 regarding the same capital increases) that no provision of law implies that the issuance of shares at a premium, even by a company operating at a loss, automatically constitutes a gift to shareholders who did not participate, since the shares are acquired in exchange for consideration (the offering price).

1. Council of State Decision 155/2026 pertains to tax assessments issued following an audit by the Audit Centre for Taxpayers of Great Wealth (KEFOMEP) regarding unjustified increases in wealth arising from bank credits whose origin had not been adequately substantiated. The audit covered the 2008, 2009 and 2013 financial years and the 2014 tax year and resulted in the imposition of income tax, penalties, interest, solidarity contribution and stamp duties.
 

2. During the administrative appeal before the Dispute Resolution Directorate (DED), the taxpayer submitted additional documentation. The DED treated these materials as new evidence and referred the case back to KEFOMEP for a supplementary audit. Following this re‑examination, certain claims advanced by the taxpayer were accepted and several assessed amounts were reduced. The Athens Administrative Court of Appeal subsequently allowed the taxpayer’s judicial appeal in part.
 

3. Before the Council of State, the taxpayer raised the following principal issues:
a. First, he argued that his right to be heard had been infringed because the DED’s invitation to submit his views did not expressly identify the new documents and findings arising from the supplementary audit. The Council of State rejected this argument, holding that it rested on an incorrect reading of the appellate judgment. The Administrative Court of Appeal had not found that a hearing was not required when the tax authority introduced new evidence, but that the requirement was satisfied by the invitation issued on 25 April 2019. The taxpayer had the opportunity to present his views and submit supporting documents, and the materials from the supplementary audit formed part of the administrative file which he could have inspected. These materials were also provided to him upon request before the initiation of judicial proceedings. Accordingly, the hearing invitation did not need to reproduce or expressly identify the supplementary audit’s conclusions or the documents transmitted through the international‑information channel.
b. Secondly, the taxpayer contended that the State’s right to assess tax for the 2007 and 2008 accounting periods had expired under the ordinary five‑year limitation period, asserting that the relevant transfers were visible through Greek bank accounts and therefore did not constitute new or supplementary evidence. The Council of State upheld the lower court’s findings that the taxable difference arose from the taxpayer’s foreign accounts, specifically an investment portfolio held with a Swiss bank and not from movements in Greek accounts. The tax authority did not have direct access to the Swiss portfolio, and the record did not demonstrate that it knew, or reasonably could have known, of the portfolio before expiry of the ordinary limitation period. The Swiss account had been opened on 22 August 2007, and there was no evidence of any funding relationship between that account and Greek bank accounts. The portfolio only became known to the tax authority in 2018, through documents attached to the taxpayer’s own submissions following a request for information. This information therefore qualified as supplementary evidence, thereby extending the limitation period to ten years. The assessments for the 2008 and 2009 financial years, served on 28 December 2018 were therefore timely, as the respective ten‑year periods expired on 31 December 2018 and 31 December 2019.
 

4. The taxpayer’s application for cassation was therefore dismissed.