A recent judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court shows that failure to publish the financial statements can lead to serious consequences. In this article, we have summarised the practical implications for you.
On 5 February 2026, the Supreme Administrative Court (the “SAC”) issued judgment 6 Afs 122/2025‑30, addressing whether the Tax Office acted correctly in finding a company guilty of an administrative offence for failing to publish its financial statements. Although the penalty imposed in this matter was “only a warning”, which may seem negligible compared to the fine that, pursuant to Act No. 563/1991 Coll., on Accounting, as amended (the “Accounting Act”), Section 37a(4)(b), may reach up to 3% of the total value of assets, the company challenged the Tax Office’s procedure. Among other objections, it argued that, on its own initiative, the Tax Office searched for the information in public registers, and that the failure to publish the financial statements did not breach the public interest.
And how did the Supreme Administrative Court decide?
The SAC held that the Tax Office did not breach the law when it took the initiative (i.e., without the company’s knowledge) to inspect the Collection of Deeds of the Commercial Register via a publicly accessible portal and thereby discovered the commission of the administrative offence pursuant to Section 37a(1)(n) of the Accounting Act. On the contrary, it acted lawfully, namely in accordance with the principle of official investigation pursuant to Section 78 of Act No. 280/2009 Coll., the Tax Code, as amended. The SAC further stated that when an administrative authority (the Tax Office) learns of circumstances indicating the commission of an offence pursuant to the Accounting Act, it is obliged to initiate proceedings in relation to such an offence.
The SAC also stated that by failing to publish its financial statements, the company fulfilled the statutory elements of the offence pursuant to Section 37a(1)(n) of the Accounting Act. According to the SAC’s case-law, in typical cases where no significant exceptional circumstances exclude social harmfulness, conduct that satisfies the formal aspect of the offence (i.e., non‑publication) also satisfies the material aspect of the offence (i.e., breach of the public interest, for example, the interests of business partners and creditors).
What does this judgment mean in practice?
This judgment confirmed the powers of the Tax Offices. It makes clear that, in the course of their activities, Tax Offices may inspect the Collection of Deeds of the Commercial Register to verify whether a taxpayer is fulfilling its obligations in the field of tax administration. If, during this activity or otherwise, they identify a breach of the obligation to publish the financial statements as required by the Accounting Act, they must initiate offence proceedings. Let us recall that failure to publish the financial statements may result in a fine of up to 3% of the total value of assets (or consolidated total assets in the case of the consolidated financial statements). Failure to publish may signal to the Financial Administration that it should begin examining the matter more closely. Therefore, companies cannot rely on the belief that “nothing can happen” until they receive a formal request from the registry court. This is because the administrative authority competent to deal with non‑publishing of financial statements is not only the registry court, which proceeds pursuant to Section 104 of Act No. 304/2013 Coll., on Public Registers of Legal Entities and Natural Persons and on the Register of Trusts, as amended (the “Public Registers Act”), but also the Tax Office, which proceeds pursuant to Section 37a of the Accounting Act.
Section 21a of the Accounting Act imposes an obligation on all reporting entities registered in a public register, as well as those for which a special legal regulation sets this requirement, to publish their financial statements. If a company is subject to a mandatory audit pursuant to Section 20 of the Accounting Act, it must also publish its annual report.
The scope of the information published from the financial statements may vary. For example, micro and small reporting entities that are not subject to a mandatory audit are not required to publish their profit and loss account (Section 21a(9) of the Accounting Act). By contrast, entities subject to a mandatory audit must publish their financial statements in the same scope and wording as those used in the audit (including the full annual report).
The Accounting Act also sets publication deadlines. Companies subject to a mandatory audit must publish their financial statements, including the annual report, within 30 days of the auditor’s verification and after approval by the competent body, provided both conditions have been fulfilled, and no later than 12 months after the balance‑sheet date. Reporting entities not subject to a mandatory audit must publish their financial statements no later than 12 months after the balance‑sheet date.
However, documents that must be published are not listed only in the Accounting Act but also in the Public Registers Act. For example, unaudited micro and small reporting entities often overlook the obligation to publish the Report on Relations.
As stated above, the Accounting Act provides for a fine of up to 3% of the total value of assets for the offence of failing to publish the financial statements. In addition, the registry court may impose a fine of up to CZK 100,000. The registry court may impose such a fine if the financial statements are not published even after it issues a formal request. In extreme cases, the registry court may even initiate dissolution proceedings against the company. It should also be noted that failure to comply with the company’s statutory obligations may be considered a failure to exercise professional diligence by a manager, resulting in sanctions being imposed on members of the company’s statutory bodies as well.
Seminars, webcasts, business breakfasts and other events organized by Deloitte.
