Cristina Ferreira forced to pay 161,000 euros to tax authorities for unexplained expenses – Observer

Cristina Ferreira lost a tax battle against the Tax Agency (AT) after she attempted, in 2020, to challenge the collection of €161,000, an amount related to additional payments to withholding income tax by her company Amor Ponto. a second News This Friday Expresso newspaper, the bidder not only failed to receive a refund, but also had to bear the costs of the procedure (3,672 euros). AT discovered incorrect accounting for Amor Ponto’s expenses between 2015 and 2018 – Cristina Ferreira’s company disputes tax laws.

After analyzing the 2015 accounts, explain The newspaper has proposed to the company tax deductible corrections at the headquarters of the tax authority in the amount of 87,000 euros since it was found. Expenses that “belong to the individual domain of the Managing Partner, Cristina Ferreira, and are expenses associated with building a home for private accommodation, purchasing food and household products, and travel for people outside the community, which should be considered an advance at the expense of profits.” In January 2020, the provider’s company had to pay €87 thousand plus €14 thousand in interest.

Compared to 2016, AT Amor Ponto cost almost 54 thousand euros. Inspections of accounts for 2017 and 2018 also resulted in the collection of nearly 6 thousand euros, amounts already paid by Cristina Ferreira.

In July 2020, Amor Ponto submitted an application for arbitration at the Administrative Arbitration Center – in the decision, which Expresso has now consulted, the following conclusion reads: “It has not been shown that the traveling companions of the managing partner have developed any activity related to the social interest and scope of the applicant.” [Amor Ponto]”.

Taking into account the property owned by the offeror, which became part of the assets of Amor Ponto in December 2018, the arbitration award states that: Payments made by the applicant [Amor Ponto] In connection with the construction of the house, the decoration and its equipment, they constituted a direct benefit, realized in the increase of the capital, to the owner of the property, the managing partner “.

Thus, Omar Punto “She has invoked the reputation of the managing partner, a well-known public figure, to generally state that anyone who accompanies her on her travels will do so in a professional capacity, ie to take pictures published in the media (…) However, this statement has not been substantiated”. “There was no justification for personal consumption,” it said.