Kuwait Court of Cassation principle number 349

Summary: - It is established that the Tax Assessment Department assessed the national workforce support tax payable by the appellant company and notified it of the tax assessment on its profits for the assessment years. The appellant objected, its objection was rejected, and it was notified of the rejection. The appellant's failure to appeal before the Tax Appeals Committee within thirty days from the date of its notification. Effect thereof. The assessment becomes final and cannot be challenged before any authority, even by way of a defense in an ordinary action instituted against it to collect the tax. The appellant's contention that the action may not be heard due to the passage of time in respect of some assessment years. Ineffectual because the tax has become payable. The Court of Cassation may correct the statements in the judgment in this regard without quashing it. Rule: Whereas it is established from the papers that the appellant company is a Kuwaiti company listed on the Kuwait Stock Exchange on 29/9/1984, and that the Tax Assessment Department assessed the national workforce support tax payable by it for the financial years ending on 31/12/2001, 31/12/2002, 31/12/2003, and 31/12/2004 and notified it of the tax assessment on its profits for these years, the appellant objected to this assessment. However, the Tax Department issued its decision rejecting this objection and notified the appellant thereof on 28/1/2006. The latter did not appeal this decision before the Tax Appeals Committee within the period specified in Ministerial Decision No. 16 of 1997—referred to above—namely thirty days from the date of notification of the rejection of the objection—and the appellant does not dispute this. Accordingly, the assessment in this manner became final and incapable of being challenged before any authority, even by way of a defense in an ordinary action instituted against it to collect this tax. Since the first-instance judgment, upheld on its grounds by the challenged judgment, adhered to this view and consequently ruled that the appellant be ordered to pay the adjudged amount, it correctly applied the law and did not violate it. This is not affected by what the appellant raised concerning its dispute over the non-receipt of the tax assessment notification or its criticism of the expert in the action for not deducting certain amounts stated in its two bundles of documents submitted to him from the amount payable by it, since the tax payable by it has become final and payable—as explained above. Thus, granting its request to appoint another expert to examine its objections would avail it nothing. Nor is the soundness of the challenged judgment affected by the erroneous assessments in its grounds, stating that the letter sent by the appellant dated 27/12/2005 constitutes an acknowledgment of the debt and interrupts the limitation period—in its words—since the tax has become final and payable. The appellant's contention that the action may not be heard due to the passage of time in respect of the years 2001, 2002, and 2003—whatever view may be taken thereof—is therefore ineffectual. The Court of Cassation may correct the assessments in the judgment in this regard without quashing it, and the challenge to it on the grounds of appeal is without foundation.