Notifications outside the address indicated by the taxpayer
The TS declares that, in the event that the notifications made to a third person in a place other than that indicated by the taxpayer or his representative, and that it is not the tax domicile of one or the other, it must be presumed that the act he did not reach the interested party promptly and caused him helplessness; that this presumption admits evidence to the contrary whose burden falls on the Administration; and that the proof must be considered fulfilled when it is sufficiently proven that the act came to the interested party’s attention.
Una persona física recibe en mayo de 2008 una notificación de la Administración en su centro de trabajo, en la cual se le informa del inicio de actuaciones de inspección por el concepto de su impuesto personal IRPF del ejercicio 2003. La notificación no se la entregan a él mismo, sino a una persona que se identifica como su secretaria.
La cuestión relevante es la de determinar si resulta eficaz la notificación de inicio de las actuaciones inspectoras practicada a una tercera persona fuera del domicilio señalado por el obligado, en concreto, en su centro de trabajo.
Considera la Sala que Así, la práctica de las notificaciones conlleva dos consecuencias:
- que la regularidad formal de la notificación no será suficiente para su validez si el notificado no tuvo conocimiento real del acto que había de comunicársele; y
- que los incumplimientos de las formalidades establecidas no serán obstáculo para admitir la validez de la notificación si ha quedado debidamente acreditado que su destinatario tuvo un real conocimiento del acto comunicado.
En este sentido, se pueden dar varias situaciones:
• notifications that respect all the formalities established: they must be based on the iuris tantum presumption that the act has been promptly brought to the attention of the interested party, and may be carried out in cases in which the contrary has been sufficiently proven;
• notifications that have unknown formalities of a substantial nature, including those practiced, through a third party, in a place other than the address of the interested party: in these it must be presumed that the act did not reach the interested party promptly and caused defenselessness, but this presumption admits evidence to the contrary, whose burden falls on the Administration. This test is considered fulfilled when it is sufficiently proven that the act became known to the interested party; Y
• notifications that violate formalities of a secondary nature: they must be based on the presumption that the act has come to the interested party promptly.
The TS concludes that the day it appears before the Administration is when it is considered that the interested party has come to real knowledge of the act that has been notified, so it determines that the prescription used by the appellant must be accepted and canceled. the sanctioning act imposed.