TFL Vsebine / Revija SIR*IUS

Taxation of Subsequent Payments in the Light of the Case Law and Changes to Tax Legislation

Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije je 22. 1. 2019 na javni obravnavi razglasilo sodbo, s katero je razsodilo o stališču Finančne uprave Republike Slovenije, po katerem se naknadna vplačila družbenika v kapital družbe niso vštevala v nabavno vrednost poslovnega deleža družbenika družbe z omejeno odgovornostjo. Posledica te davčne prakse je bilo obdavčevanje fizičnih oseb z davkom od dobička iz kapitala na del dosežene vrednosti, ki so jo realizirali ob odsvojitvi poslovnega deleža, ki pa ni bila ustvarjeni dobiček odsvojitelja, temveč povračilo njegovega vložka v kapital družbe. Vrhovno sodišče je z izhodiščnim argumentom, da je treba pri obdavčevanju z dohodnino izhajati iz dejansko ustvarjenega povečanja premoženja, to stališče zavrnilo. Sodba Vrhovnega sodišča je precedenčna in je spremenila davčno prakso Finančne uprave Republike Slovenije. Zaradi te sodbe je zakonodajalec z novelo Zakona o dohodnini (ZDoh-2V) dopolnil določbe v 6.2. in 6.3. poglavju Zakona o dohodnini. V prispevku analiziram razloge za odločitev Vrhovnega sodišča, predstavljam spremembe v zakonodaji ter dileme s tem v zvezi.

At a public hearing on 21 January 2019, the Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia issued a judgement[1] on the position of the Financial Administration of the Republic of Slovenia[2] according to which a shareholder’s subsequent payments in a company’s capital were not included in the acquisition value of a shareholder’s interest in a limited liability company. As a consequence of such tax practice, capital gains of natural persons were taxed for the part of the value achieved and realized upon disposal of their share which, however, did not represent the seller’s capital gains, but rather the repayment of his contribution in the company’s capital. The Supreme Court rejected this position with the baseline argument that the taxation of personal income shall rather derive from the premises of the actually achieved increase of assets. This Supreme Court’s judgement set precedence, and changed the tax practice of the Financial Administration of the Republic of Slovenia. As a result of the said judgement, the legislature amended the Personal Income Tax Act (ZDoh-2V[3]) by amending the provisions in Chapters 6.2 and 6.3.[4] The present article analyses the reasons for the Supreme Court’s decision, presents the changes in the legislation and the dilemmas in this regard.