Is it sufficient for the authorized person to rely on the data provided in the financial statements and examine, in particular, whether the public sector partner has accounted for non-taxable expenses in its accounts (i.e., whether the public sector partner's profit is not transferred in any other way than through tax expenses)? We assume that tax compliance is the responsibility of the tax administrator. At the same time, the provisions of the RPVS Act do not impose any specific obligation on the authorized person to examine the economic situation of the public sector partner.
OPINION OF THE MINISTRY OF JUSTICE OF THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC:
With regard to the scope of data collection on public sector partners, it can be stated that the ZRPVS specifies the scope of such data by means of the corrective measure “acting with professional care”. According to the definition of professional care, if an authorized person knows and can find out certain data, they're required to check and evaluate this data too. The ZRPVS does not specify the scope of data collection, also because the activities of the authorized person may be performed by various entities—in addition to lawyers, these include notaries, banks, auditors, and tax advisors. The scope and content of the data collected differs for each of these authorized persons.
In our opinion, it is also appropriate for the authorized persons themselves, in cooperation with their chambers, to develop a specific procedure for determining the ultimate beneficiary with professional care, as has been done, for example, by the Slovak Chamber of Auditors.
