SAC upholds denial of mineral oil tax refund
The Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) dismissed a cassation complaint filed by a company seeking to annul a judgment denying its claim for a refund of excise duty on mineral oils. The company was unable to prove that the mineral oils purchased were actually used to produce heat.
The company claimed that they had purchased light fuel oil (LFO) including excise duty and subsequently used it to produce heat. They did not transfer (sell) the LFO to end customers who could potentially claim a refund. However, the General Directorate of Customs (GDC) argued that the company had not demonstrated immediate control over the heat production process, which is a condition for a refund under the Excise Duty Act. Specifically, the company should have kept more detailed records of the oil supplied and its specific consumption and should have allocated sufficient staff to continuously monitor the entire heat production process, down to the points of consumption.
The company argued that the law does not require physical control over the heat production, and that the excise duty should be refunded to the person who purchased the oil and used it to produce heat. The company pleaded that the requirement of control over the heat production process was beyond the scope of the law.
The Municipal Court stated that to be able to recover the excise duty, it must be proved that the oil had actually been used to produce heat, which is conditional upon full control over the production of heat and the consumption of the oils. The company was unable to prove that its employees had had control over the heating facilities at the points of oil consumption and heat production; hence, the company’s claim was denied.
The company further argued that the change in the customs authority’s practices was contrary to their expectations based on previous inspections that had revealed no irregularities. However, the Municipal Court held that the change in the practices was supported by sufficient legal reasoning and was based on proven facts. The SAC agreed with the opinion of the Municipal Court and the GDC that the company failed to bear the burden of proof.
The decision has implications for excise duty refunds in the Czech Republic, particularly for companies engaged in the production of heat from mineral oils. To successfully claim the refund of excise duty, it is vital to have demonstrable control over the production of heat (and to keep detailed records).