Davčna amnestija in davčna samoprijava

magistrska naloga

Robert Vižintin (Avtor), Bojan Škof (Mentor)

Povzetek

Davčne amnestije so tako zgodovinsko kot ozemeljsko razširjene. Zasledimo jih že v antiki. Danes se svet nahaja v finančni, dolžniški in gospodarski krizi in davčne amnestije so ponovno priljubljena tema med politiki. Z davčno amnestijo se lahko namreč v kratkem času povečajo davčni prihodki, ne da bi država uvedla nove davke oziroma povečala obstoječo davčno obremenitev, ter davčna baza, kar predstavlja za politike zelo mamljivo ponudbo. Vendar ima davčna amnestija poleg pozitivnih tudi negativne učinke, predvsem ima negativni vpliv na davčno moralo, kar dolgoročno vodi do nižjih davčnih prihodkov. V prvem delu magistrske naloge sem analiziral davčno amnestijo iz različnih vidikov, in sicer političnega, zakonodajnega in makroekonomskega, nadalje sem analiziral razloge za in proti davčni amnestiji, prvi del pa sklenil z analizo davčne amnestije v praksi. V drugem delu magistrske naloge sem analiziral širši vidik davčne samoprijave. Razlika med davčno amnestijo in davčno samoprijavo je v tem, da mora biti pri davčni amnestiji zakonsko določeno natančno obdobje, v katerem se izvaja, medtem ko se pri davčni samoprijavi to obdobje določi poljubno. Davčna amnestija je tudi ugodnejša od davčne samoprijave. Pri davčni amnestiji davčni zavezanec običajno plača le del utajenih davkov in to po nižji davčni stopnji od običajne, medtem ko mora pri davčni samoprijavi zavezanec v celoti plačati premalo plačane davke ter obresti. Institut davčne samoprijave je v Sloveniji pravni institut, opredeljen v ZDavP-2, ki ob izpolnitvi pogojev, določenih z zakonom, daje davčnim zavezancem upravičenja na področju prekrškovnega prava, na področju davčnega (upravnega) prava pa jih nekoliko sankcionira – s pribitkom na obresti. S tem se želi doseči, da bi davčni zavezanec nepravilnosti davčnemu organu sporočil čim prej. Uspešno izvedena samoprijava pa ne izključuje samodejno odgovornosti za katerega od kaznivih dejanj po KZ-1. Institut davčne samoprijave ne odpravi obstoja davčnega prekrška, temveč ga naredi nekaznivega, kar pa ne velja za kaznivo dejanje. Povedano drugače, »prostovoljnost« pri davčni samoprijavi je močno podprta z obljubo davčnemu zavezancu, da ne bo kaznovan, vendar pa se takšna zakonodajalčeva obljuba nanaša le na davčni prekršek, ne pa tudi na kaznivo dejanje. Zakonodajalec lahko torej s »povabilom« k davčni samoprijavi (četudi lahko povsem nehote) davčnega zavezanca zapelje, da sam sebe prijavi, da je storil (veliko hujše) kaznivo dejanje. Neprostovoljna samoovadba za kaznivo dejanje pa pomeni kršitev privilegija zoper samoobtožbo. V magistrski nalogi sem argumentiral tezo, da bi bilo potrebno učinke davčne samoprijave razpotegniti tudi na kazniva dejanja. Tako pravna ureditev instituta davčne samoprijave v Sloveniji ne bi več povzročala neenakopravne obravnave zavezancev za davek. S tem bi zakonodajalec tudi preprečil, da bi vabilo k priznanju davčnega prekrška pravzaprav lahko pomenilo samoovadbo za kaznivo dejanje. Neprostovoljna samoovadba za kaznivo dejanje pa bi pomenila kršitev privilegija zoper samoobtožbo. V zvezi s tem sem v magistrski nalogi analiziral privilegij zoper samoobtožbo, primerjal davčne prekrške in davčna kazniva dejanja, analiziral kaznivo dejanje davčne zatajitve po 249. členu KZ-1, primerjal davčni in kazenski postopek, analiziral dopustnost dokazov iz nekazenskih postopkov ter analiziral institut davčne samoprijave v Republiki Sloveniji.

Ključne besede

davčno pravo;davčna amnestija;privilegij zoper samoobtožbo;davčni prekršek;davčno kaznivo dejanje;davčna zatajitev;davčni postopek;kazenski postopek;vzporedni postopek;davčna samoprijava;magistrske naloge;

Podatki

Jezik:	Slovenski jezik
Leto izida:	2016
Tipologija:	2.09 - Magistrsko delo
Organizacija:	UM PF - Pravna fakulteta
Založnik:	[R. Vižintin]
UDK:	336.22(043.3)
COBISS:	5189675
Št. ogledov:	2410
Št. prenosov:	246
Ocena:	0 (0 glasov)
Metapodatki:

Ostali podatki

Sekundarni jezik:	Angleški jezik
Sekundarni naslov:	Tax amnesty and voluntary tax disclosure
Sekundarni povzetek:	Tax amnesties are widespread in terms of time and territory. We can find them already in ancient time. Today world suffer big crises on different levels. We talk about financial, debt and economical crises. In such situation tax amnesties are in vogue. They offer the possibility to collect additional money without introducing new taxes or raising the present ones, beside enlarging the taxpayers database, which sounds attractive to politicians. But tax amnesties, on the other hand, generate also negative effects, decreasing tax morale as one of the most negative effect of tax amnesty, which, in long run, ends in lower tax revenues. In the first part of my thesis tax amnesty has been analised from different points of view, political, legislative and macroeconomical. Additionally, reasons pro and contra tax amnesty have been analised. Finally, tax amnesties have been presented in practise. In the second part of my thesis voluntary tax disclosure has been analised. Differences between tax amnesty and voluntary tax disclosure are, that in first case period of time, which is given to taxpayer to use the amnesty, is strictly determinated by law, while in second case the period of time is not determinated. Additionally, tax amnesty is for taxpayer more favourable, being obligated to pay only part of evaded taxes on lower degree, while in the case of voluntary tax disclosure, all tax duties must be payed in whole amount, whith surcharge of interest. The institute of voluntary tax disclosure is described in ZDavP-2 and gives, under the fulfilment of conditions, determinated by law, the taxpayer certain benefits in the area of misdemeanor law, while in the area of tax law taxpayer is sanctionated with a surcharge on interest, in order to report irregularities to tax office as soon as possible. Succesfully realised voluntary tax disclosure do not exclude automatically the responsability for any of the criminal offences, described in KZ-1. The institute of voluntary tax disclosure do not eliminate the presence of tax minor offence, but it makes it unpunishable, what is not the case for tax criminal offence. To say in other words, the willingness of the taxpayer is strongly suported with the promise not to be punished, but the promise refers only to tax minor offence and not also to tax criminal offence. Taxpayer can be therefore with such »invitation«, mislead to incriminate himself to commit a much harder tax criminal offence, which can be understood also as the violance of the privilage against self-incrimination. In this work i argued with the thesis, that the consequences of voluntary tax disclosure should be stretched also to tax criminal offence. In such case the institut of self-incrimination would not cause the inequality handling of taxpayers. The institut of self-incrimination would not be, in such case, understood as self-incrimination for tax criminal offence and the privilage against self-incrimination would not be violated. To reach this goal, privilage against self-incrimination has been analised, tax minor offences and tax criminal offences have been analised, tax criminal offence under the article 249. of KZ-1 has been analised, tax and criminal proceeding have been compared, parallel proceedings have been analised and finally, the institut of voluntary tax disclosure in Republic of Slovenia has been analised.
Sekundarne ključne besede:	tax law;tax amnesty;privilege against self-incrimination;tax minor offence;tax criminal offence;tax proceeding;criminal proceeding;parallel proceeding;voluntary tax disclosure;master thesis;
URN:	URN:SI:UM:
Vrsta dela (COBISS):	Magistrsko delo
Komentar na gradivo:	Univ. v Mariboru, Pravna fak.
Strani:	154 f.
ID:	9135501