Due to housing deliveries, it is sufficient to determine unrecorded revenue based on the statements of those receiving the housing, as well as the data in appraisal reports mentioned by banks regarding the properties.
According to the decision of the Council of State Tax Department, 2020/421 M. 2021/1493 D. , 03.11.2021 dated ; it is stated that in the tax audit report regarding the delivered properties, the plaintiff declared a total revenue of 927,500.00 TL including VAT for the delivered properties, but it was determined that the actual revenue obtained from the sale of the properties amounted to 1,340,786.00 TL, based on both the statements of the recipients of the properties and the data in the appraisal reports mentioned by the banks.
Additionally, while determining the difference in the base amount, the buyer statements were not considered, and the data in the appraisal reports sent by the banks were taken into account. Furthermore, it is mentioned that the profitability rate of the plaintiff company was determined as 67%.
The plaintiff stated that there are two buyers who claim that the invoice amount differs from the amount they paid, and there is animosity between them, hence their statements in this regard were considered for taxation. It is argued that the values in the bank appraisal reports taken as the basis do not reflect the reality, that these values are inflated by the banks to secure higher loans, and this situation is a widespread practice. It is asserted that it is not possible to calculate the difference in the base amount based on the values in the appraisal reports.
Regarding the differing amounts between the invoice amounts and the amounts paid, it was stated by the company representative that, according to those individuals, additional requests were made beyond the agreed terms after the sale of the apartments, and upon the non-fulfillment of these subsequent requests, they made these statements to potentially cause harm to themselves.
Concerning the transfers of money made by the buyers of the properties to the personal bank accounts of the company partner, the individual stated, ‘The funds deposited into my personal account are due to price differences arising from some buyers requesting different brands or models of goods for their homes. We did not inadvertently issue any documents for these deposited funds. We have no intention in this matter.’
The company official stated that there is animosity between them and those individuals, asserting that their statements cannot be considered, and the animosity claim is based on the non-fulfillment of additional requests made by those individuals after the apartments were sold. However, the company partner stated that the transfers made to their personal accounts by the buyers of the properties (including the buyer of one of the disputed properties) stemmed from price differences arising from some buyers requesting different brands or models of goods for their homes.
In light of the contradiction between the statements of the company official and the company partner, there is no possibility to consider the animosity claim. Therefore, the taxation based on the difference in the base amount determined by relying on the buyer statements naturally and explicitly related to the event creating the tax liability is legally valid.