What sources does Taxxa search?

Taxxa searches a continuously updated collection of more than one million pages from tax authorities, government publications, legislation and case law across the European jurisdictions it covers. Every response cites the underlying material, so a professional can inspect the rule, its jurisdiction and whether it is current before relying on the result.

Can Taxxa work with a team’s own documents?

Yes. Research can combine the public knowledge base with a team’s own PDF, DOCX, CSV and TXT files in one workspace. That makes it possible to compare a client document with the relevant guidance, trace a conclusion to its source and prepare a draft without losing the evidence that supports it.

Who is Taxxa built for?

Accountants, auditors, tax advisors, payroll specialists, bookkeepers and advisory teams working across European jurisdictions. Shared workspaces keep research available to colleagues, and citations make review easier.

Where is customer data stored, and is it used to train models?

Customer data stays in the European Union and is never used to train language models.

Does Taxxa replace professional judgement?

No. Taxxa is a research and drafting workspace. It helps professionals reach an informed starting point faster; the professional still reviews the evidence and makes the final decision. It does not file returns, post bookkeeping entries or give legal advice.

LithuaniaLiteko

Court voids 4,620 Eur fine: contractor was never authorised SDIK holder

No contract term appointed LLENTAB authorised contractor, so the Article 22(1)(4) duty stayed with client UAB Argutus; the 4,620 Eur fine and the first-instance judgment were annulled.

By Taxxa AI OyPublished 23 September 2026

Payroll & Labour Legal & Corporate

The Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas annulled the Valstybinė darbo inspekcija (VDI) decision No NUĮPBJ 38961 of 27 November 2024Teismai, which had fined the Polish company LLENTAB 4,620 EurTeismai — five minimum monthly wages — for illegal work in construction. The worker concerned, the Polish citizen T. R., performed construction works at the site from 29 July to 21 August 2024Teismai without a valid skaidriai dirbančio asmens identifikavimo kodas (SDIK, transparent-work ID)Teismai, and VDI treated LLENTAB as the client's authorised contractor (įgaliotas rangovas) responsible for ensuring every individual on site held a codeTeismai.

The court held that LLENTAB was never validly identified as the authorised contractorTeismai. Under Article 22(1)(6) of the Statybos įstatymas, a sole contractor serving an individual client is deemed the authorised contractor by operation of lawE TAR; in every other case — including this one, where the client UAB Argutus is a legal person — the authorised contractor is only the contractor empowered by a contract or another written documentTeismai. The panel examined the 26 April 2024 works contract and the 29 July 2024 site handover record and found no term appointing LLENTAB to ensure that all individuals on site held codes or identification meansTeismai. General safety, fire-safety and coordination clauses are a different matter and do not carry the Article 22(1)(4) duty, and the mere handover of the site does not itself confirm the appointment.

Because the appointment condition was missing, the Article 22(1)(4) duty to ensure codes rested with the clientTeismai. The court also rejected VDI's reliance on the Vilnius Regional Court ruling of 5 December 2023 in case No AN2-323-1058/2023Teismai: that case law predates the new wording of Article 22(1) in force since 1 July 2024Teismai, which introduced the written-appointment requirementTeismai, and since the same date Article 56(1)(2) of the Užimtumo įstatymas places liability for illegal construction work on the client or the authorised contractorTeismai. VDI had therefore misassessed the facts, misapplied the substantive rules and relied on superseded case law, making the decision unlawful and unfoundedTeismai.

The Regionų administracinis teismas judgment of 25 February 2025, which had uncritically endorsed VDI's reading without an independent examination, was set aside as one-sided and unlawfulTeismai, and a new judgment granting LLENTAB's complaint was adoptedTeismai. Having established that LLENTAB was not the proper liability subjectTeismai, the panel left the remaining arguments — including the A1-certificate and alternative supporting documents points — unexamined as immaterial to the outcome.

The decision is not subject to appealTeismai. LLENTAB was awarded 1,233.75 Eur in litigation costs against VDITeismai: 1,200 Eur for first-instance counsel assistance and 33.75 Eur in stamp duty (11.25 Eur for the appeal plus 22.50 Eur for the first-instance complaint).

Legal basis: Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas ruling No eA-683-492/2026 of 23 September 2026Teismai, applying Article 22(1) of the Statybos įstatymas in the wording in force since 1 July 2024Teismai and Article 56(1) of the Užimtumo įstatymas in the wording in force since 25 July 2024; construction works by individuals without a valid SDIK where one is required count as illegal work under Article 56(1)(1), and the client or its single authorised contractor is deemed the employer of the person working illegally under Article 56(1)(2)Teismai.

Name the authorised contractor responsible for SDIK-code compliance expressly in the contract or another written document.

Sources