TFL Vsebine / Revija SIR*IUS

Administrative Court current case-law on capital gains tax

Sodna praksa na področju obdavčitve dobička iz kapitala je bogata. Zato je glede nekaterih vprašanj verjetno neenotna. Tako je tudi pri obdavčitvi dobička iz kapitala, pri čemer se je pred odsvojitvijo poslovnega deleža v gospodarski družbi povečal osnovni kapital iz sredstev družbe. Upravno sodišče je v nedavni sodbi odločilo, da je napačno stališče Finančne uprave Republike Slovenije, katere odločba je bila predmet sodne presoje, da je davčni zavezanec (tožnik v omenjenem upravnem sporu) na podlagi povečanja kapitala iz sredstev družbe pridobil nov kapital v smislu 93. člena ZDoh-2. Sodišče je dalo prednost ekonomskemu vidiku pred računovodskim. Presodilo je, da bi se za pridobitev kapitala lahko štela le transakcija oziroma sprememba kapitala, ki se odrazi v povečanju njegove vrednosti. Povsem jasno je namreč, da se pri povečanju osnovnega kapitala iz sredstev družbe njena knjigovodska vrednost ne spremeni, saj se le povečajo vezane in zmanjšajo nevezane postavke kapitala, medtem ko se stanje sredstev v družbi oziroma njena vrednost ne spremeni. Tako stališče sledi temeljnemu namenu ureditve iz poglavja 6.3 v Zakonu o dohodnini, torej obdavčitev dobička, ki ga ob pridobitvi in odsvojitvi kapitala v določenem obdobju ustvari fizična oseba.

The case law in the field of taxation of capital gains is extensive. Therefore, it is likely to be inconsistent on some issues. This is also the case with the taxation of capital gains,where the share capital was increased from the company's assets before the disposal of a business share. In a recent ruling on the judicial review of the Slovenian Tax Administration decision that the taxpayer (the plaintiff in the mentioned administrative dispute) acquired new capital from the company's assets based on an increase in capital within the meaning of Article 93 of the amended Income Tax Act (ZDoh-2), the Administrative Court of the Republic of Slovenia decided that their position was incorrect. The Court gave priority to the economic aspect over the accounting one. It ruled that only a transaction or capital change that results in an increase in its value could be considered an acquisition of capital. It is quite clear that when the share capital is increased from the company's assets, its book value does not change, as only the tied capital items increase and the untied capital items decrease, while the balance of assets in the company or its value does not change. This position follows the fundamental purpose of the regulation in Chapter 6.3 of the Personal Income Tax Act, i.e. the taxation of profits generated by a natural person upon the acquisition and disposal of capital in a certain period.