TFL Vsebine / Revija SIR*IUS

Legality of Measures in the Fight against VAT Evasion and Abuses

Ko davčni organ odmeri DDV davčnemu zavezancu, ki utaji davek, je tak ukrep nedvomno legitimen. Drugače pa je, če davčni organ davčne prihodke zaščiti tako, da utajeni davek odmeri pri davčnem zavezancu, ki je z utajevalcem sodeloval, pa od davčne utaje ni imel finančne koristi in lahko za utajo niti ni vedel. V davčni in sodni praksi ni več dvoma, da je tudi tak ukrep zakonit, če je izveden tako, da upošteva temeljna načela, pojasnjena v prvem delu tega prispevka, in če so dokazani vsi pogoji za uvedbo ukrepa, ki jih bom pojasnila v tem delu prispevka. Davčni organ zaščiti davčne prihodke z ukrepi odvzema pravice do odbitka vstopnega DDV-ja, z ukrepi odvzema drugih pravic iz sistema DDV-ja, z odmero DDV-ja preko instituta solidarne odgovornosti za plačilo tujega davka oziroma z nepriznanjem pravic, uveljavljenih preko shem nezakonitega davčnega načrtovanja. Dokazno breme pogojev za ukrepe ima davčni organ, ki pa je v teh postopkih v ambivalentnem položaju; je organ, ki je zainteresiran za rezultat postopka, a hkrati tudi organ, ki mu zakon nalaga skrb za zakonito in nepristransko ugotavljanje materialnopravno pomembnih dejstev. Zato je skrb za zakonitost izvajanja ukrepov nedvomno na mestu. Sodna praksa VS RS je že pokazala, da si je davčni organ pravni standard "je vedel oziroma bi moral vedeti za utajo" razlagal preširoko. Poleg tega standarda, ki se ugotavlja za vsak primer posebej, pa ukrepi odpirajo še druga vprašanja, prikazana v zaključku prispevka, na katera pa praksa še ni odgovorila.

When the tax authority assesses VAT to a taxpayer who evaded tax, such measure is undoubtedly deemed to be legitimate. The situation, however, may be different when the tax authority secures the tax revenue by assessing the evaded tax to the taxpayer who cooperated with the evader, but had no financial gain from the tax evasion and perhaps never even knew of the evasion. There is no doubt any more, both in tax practice and in case law, that such measure is legitimate, if carried out in such a way that it takes into consideration the basic principles explained in the first part of the present paper, and if all conditions are provided for introducing the measure, as explained herein. Tax authority protects tax revenue with the measure of withdrawal of the right to deduct input VAT, with the measure of withdrawal of other rights from the VAT system, by assessing the VAT through the institute of joint and several liability for the payment of foreign tax, or by non-recognition of rights established through schemes of illegal tax planning. The burden of proving the conditions for measures rests of on the tax authority whose position in this procedure is rather ambivalent. On the one hand, it is a body interested in the outcome of the procedure, and on the other hand it is also a body on which the law imposes concern for lawful and impartial finding of substantively important facts. For this reason, the concern for the legality of measures taken is undoubtedly justified. Case law of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia has already shown that the tax authority interpretation of the legal standard "knew or ought to have known for the evasion" was far too broad. Apart from this standard that is being determined on a case-by-case basis, the measures open up other dilemmas presented in the conclusion of this paper, for which the practice has not yet come up with an answer.