doktorska disertacija
Marko Ravljen (Author), Aleš Kobal (Mentor), Renato Vrenčur (Co-mentor)

Abstract

Čeprav se na prvi pogled definiranje in razmejitev zavezančevega ravnanja v razponu od povsem dopustnega do davčno evazivnega zdi lahka naloga, pa kot izhaja iz predložene naloge temu še zdaleč ni tako. V predstavljenem delu uporabljam izraz "davčna izognitev" (oziroma subsidiarno: "davčno načrtovanje/planiranje") za opredelitev legalnega ravnanja, izraz "davčno zaobidenje" (oziroma subsidiarno: "davčno izogibanje", ki ga za opredelitev četrtega odstavka 74. člena ZDavP-2 uporablja pretežni del slovenske davčnopravne literature) za opredelitev davčno spornega ravnanja, ki pa ne predstavlja kaznivo dejanje, ter izraz "davčna utajitev" (oziroma "davčna utaja") za opredelitev dejanja, ki pa kaznivo dejanje je. Temeljno vprašanje, na katerega je bilo potrebno odgovoriti že v izhodišču, je vprašanje obstoja podrejenosti davčnega od civilnega pravo. V predloženem delu ugotavljam, da razlaga davčnih zakonov temelji na svojih vrednotah in pravilih, ki dajejo v postopku oblikovanja davčne osnove prednost ekonomskim učinkom sklenjenih pravnih poslov pred njihovo civilnopravno obličnostjo. Govorimo lahko o t. i. ekonomskem pristopu, ki se v nemškem davčnem pravu kaže v določbah 39 do 42 AO (Abgabenordnung), v slovenskem davčnem pravu pa v vseh štirih odstavkih 74. člena ZDavP-2 (Zakon o davčnem postopku). Davčno pravo tako ugotavlja in obdavčuje dejanski ekonomski uspeh ter se bori proti prirejenemu (zmanjšanemu) " uspehu", ki ga določeni davkoplačevalci izkazujejo z uporabo navideznih in zaobidenih poslov. Navidezni posel je posel, v katerem je izjava nasprotni poslovni stranki podana sporazumno (tj. z naslovnikovim pristankom), da naj izjavljeno ne bi veljalo. Pri navideznem poslu dejansko obstaja nasprotje med tem, kar je možno prepoznati iz posla (oziroma dogodka), ter med tem, kaj se je v resnici zgodilo. Protislovje med listinsko izkazanim poslom na eni strani in dejansko prepoznanim stanjem (realnostjo) na drugi strani je tako temeljni gradnik navideznega posla. Izjavljeno se ne sklada z dejanskimi dogodki. Nasprotno pa obid zakona (fraus legis) opredeljujemo kot ravnanje, ki sicer ni usmerjeno proti izrecnemu pomenu zakona, vendar krši njegov smisel. Številčna množica oblik obida zakona, ki so še posebej zaznane v davčnem, dednem, konkurenčnem in delovnem pravu ter pravu gospodarskih družb, daje različne variante oblikovanja strategij zaobidenih poslov. V primeru obida zakona tako ni kršen zakon v svojem besedilu, je pa zagotovo zaobidena njegova vsebina (sententia) in zakonodajalčeva volja (voluntas). In v tem se obid zakona razmejuje od navideznega posla, ki pa je oblika kršitve zakona. Obid zakona je posledično potrebno strogo ločevati od kršitve zakona, čeprav obe ravnanji sprostita enake učinke. Pri tem pa se seveda pojavlja vprašanje po razmejitvi zaobidenega in navideznega posla. Ugotovi se, da zaobideni posel ni nikakršen navidezni posel, temveč je - podobno kot fiduciarni in slamnati posel - resnično želen, saj so le na ta način nameravane posledice dosegljive. Tako je potrebno ostro ločevati med obema oblikama, vendar je potrebno poudariti, da se kljub navedeni teoretični razmejitvi v praksi pojavljajo težave pri samemu prepoznanju teh poslov in njihovem ločevanju. V predstavljeni nalogi tako predstavljam strategije in pojavne oblike navideznega in zaobidenega posla. V davčnem pravu je težje kot ekstreme (kar sta davčna izognitev (oz. planiranje) na eni ter davčna utaja na drugi strani) presojati davčno zaobidenje. Vsem trem izrazom je skupno zgolj to, da opisujejo situacijo, v kateri davkoplačevalec skuša zmanjšati davek. Davčno zaobidenje je nesprejemljiva manipulacija zakona, ki ni enaka legitimnemu davčnemu planiranju, hkrati pa ni kaznivo dejanje. Nasprotno pa je navidezni posel ravnanje, ki nesporno podlega klasifikaciji davčne utaje (tj. kaznivo dejanje), saj davčni zavezanec v poslovnih knjigah in davčnih obračunih prikaže lažno stanje.

Keywords

fraus legis;agere in fraudem legis;obid zakona;zaobideni posel;simulacija;navidezni posel;davčno zaobidenje;protizaobidni predpis;direktive;disertacije;

Data

Language: Slovenian
Year of publishing:
Typology: 2.08 - Doctoral Dissertation
Organization: UM PF - Faculty of Law
Publisher: [M. Ravljen]
UDC: 336.228.34(043.3)
COBISS: 5536811 Link will open in a new window
Views: 1641
Downloads: 314
Average score: 0 (0 votes)
Metadata: JSON JSON-RDF JSON-LD TURTLE N-TRIPLES XML RDFA MICRODATA DC-XML DC-RDF RDF

Other data

Secondary language: English
Secondary title: Sham and avoidance transactions in German and Slovenian tax law
Secondary abstract: Although at first glance, the definition and delimitation of taxpayer's behavior ranging from completely permissible to tax evading seems to be an easy task, however, as shown in this paper, is far from being so. In presented document I use a term "tax planning" for defining a completely legal practice, a term "tax avoidance" for defining a disputed action which does not constitute a criminal offense, and a term "tax evasion" for defining an action which presents a criminal offense. The basic question, which had to be answered at the outset, is the question whether there is a subordination of the tax law in relation to the civil law. In presented paper, I have stated that the interpretation of the tax law is based on its own values and rules that give (in the process of establishing of a certain tax base) priority to economic effects of legal transactions prior to their legal forms. This so-called economic approach which is in German tax law reflected in Articles 39 to 42 of AO (Abgabenordnung; German tax code), while the Slovenian tax law regulates this area in each of the four paragraphs of Article 74 of the ZDavP-2 (Zakon o davčnem postopku; Slovenian tax code). Basically tax law finds and levy a real economic success and fights against false (reduced) "success", shown by some taxpayers by using sham (simulated) and avoidance transactions. Sham transaction is the one in which the statement, given to other party, by mutual agreement (i.e. with addressees consent) would not be executed. In the case of sham transaction indeed exists a conflict between what is usually possible to come out from some transaction (or event), and between what really happened. The contradiction between documents, connected with transaction on the one hand and actually identified situation (i.e. reality on the ground) on the other hand, is a cornerstone of sham transaction. What is declared does not correspond to actual events. In contrast, an avoidance of the law (fraus legis) is defined as behavior that is not directed against the strict sense of the law, but violates its meaning. Multitude of different forms of avoidance of the law, which are particularly perceived in tax, inheritance, competition, labor and corporation law, gives different variants of avoidance transaction strategies. In case of avoidance of the law there is no violation of the law in its text, but it is certainly bypassed (avoided) its content (sententia) and the legislature will (voluntas). And this is the point that delineate avoidance of the law from simulation, which is a form of violation of the law. Avoidance of the law, consequently, is to be strictly distinguished from an act of breaking the law, although both actions release the same effects. Of course, it raises the question of the demarcation between avoidance and sham transactions. It is noted that an avoidance transaction is not the same as a sham transaction, but is - like straw and fiduciary transactions - truly desired, as this is the only way to reach the intended consequences. Thus there is a need for a sharp distinction between those two forms, but it must be also emphasized that, despite the above theoretical demarcation, problems arise in practice, especially in recognizing those transactions and their distinction. In the presented paper I also present strategies and forms of sham and avoidance transactions. In the tax law it is harder than the extremes (which are tax planning on the one hand and tax evasion on the other hand) to recognize and assess a tax avoidance. All three expressions have in common only that they describe a situation in which the taxpayer seeks to reduce the tax. Tax avoidance is an unacceptable manipulation of the law, which is not the same as a legitimate tax planning, but at the same time it is not a criminal offense. By contrast, sham transaction is a conduct that is indisputably under classification of tax evasion, as a taxpayer in its tax returns gives a false statement.
Secondary keywords: fraus legis;agere in fraudem legis;abuse of law;avoidance transaction;simulation;sham transaction;tax avoidance;anti-avoidance provisions;Anti-Tax-Avoidance Directive;
URN: URN:SI:UM:
Type (COBISS): Dissertation
Thesis comment: Univ. v Mariboru, Pravna fak.
Pages: 377 str.
ID: 9385222