Maksukohustuse täitmise preventiivne tagamine enne maksukohustuse tuvastamist: ettevaatuspõhimõte maksumenetluses
Date
2016-08-29
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
Maksupettuste tõkestamise üheks peamiseks probleemiks on olukorrad, kus alanud või algavast maksumenetlusest ja ähvardavast maksuvõlgnevusest teada saanud maksukohustuslased asuvad oma vara võõrandama või peitma. Selliselt võib riik küll tasumata maksu tuvastada ja määrata, kuid vara puudumise tõttu on sissenõudmine tegelikkuses perspektiivitu ning kulutatud ressurss kasutu. Vastukaaluks maksejõuetusega seotud maksupettustele ning kohati ka mittepettuslikule maksude tasumata jätmisele on erinevates jurisdiktsioonides võetud kasutusele ennetavate tagatise instituut – maksuhaldur võib sellistes olukordades tagada oletatavaid ja alles tulevikus tuvastatavaid maksukohustusi (Eesti maksukorralduse seaduse § 1361, Ühendriikide Internal Revenue Code § 6851 ning § 6861). Tegemist on ettevaatuspõhimõtte ilmingutega maksumenetluses.
Oletuslikult pinnalt maksukohustuse täitmise tagamisel tekib mitmeid õiguslikke probleeme. Kõige põletavam on küsimus, kuidas ja kui täpselt peab olema defineeritud maksukohustuslase maksejõuetuse oht, mis võimaldab preventiivseid tõkendeid kohaldada. Sama küsimus tõusetub maksukohustuse enda olemasolu tuvastamisega. Ebaselgus preventiivsete tõkendite kohaldamisel tekitab omakorda õigusselguse ja -kindluse probleemi. Kui taolise tõkendi sanktsioneerib eelnevalt kohus, seda eriti ex parte menetluses, põrkuvad ühelt poolt kohtu kohustus indiviidi kaitsta ning teiselt poolt kohtu keeld sekkuda ennetavalt maksuhalduri tegevuse õiguspärasuse (maksukohustuse olemasolu). Kokkuvõttes tõstatab see küsimuse, kas ja kuivõrd on preventiivsete tõkendite meede kooskõlas Euroopa inimõiguste ja põhivabaduste kaitse konventsiooni esimese lisaprotokolli artikliga 1 (omandiõiguse kaitse, edaspidi „Konventsiooni P1-1“) ning kuidas on võimalik seda meedet reguleerida selliselt, et konventsioonist ning ja menetlusõiguse üldistest põhimõtetest tulenevalt on menetluses avalikud ja erahuvid paremini tasakaalus. Autor keskendub põhiasjalikult Konventsiooni P1-1, Eesti MKS § 1361 (puhas tagamissüsteem) ning Ühendriikide IRS § 6851 ja § 6861 (kiirendatud maksuhindamise süsteem) võrdlusele.
The main problem in prevention of tax frauds relates to situations where the tax payer, getting aware of the tax procedure and possible tax liability, starts to dispossess or hide its assets in order to hinder the efficiency of tax enforcement procedure. In such cases, the state may determine the tax liability and enforce it, but due to the lack of assets, the outcome of the enforcement procedure is relatively predictable. To prevent such outcome, whether due to fraudulent activities or not, several jurisdictions have adopted preventive securities measures, under which the tax authority is able to secure the payment of yet undetermined tax liability in a situation where there is a reason to believe that the ordinary enforcement procedure may be jeopardized (Estonian Taxation Act § 1361, U.S. Internal Revenue Code § 6851 and § 6861). This represents principle of precaution in tax procedure. When securing the payment of conjectural tax debt, several critical legal concerns emerge. The main question is, which is the level of precision of defining the risk that the tax payer will become insolvent. This is the main ground for applying the preventive securities. The same question emerges when it comes town to considering the unidentified tax liability itself. Uncertainty in these matters rise serious problems with the principle of legal certainty as well as with legal clarity. In case such preventive measure is priorly sanctioned by the court, especially when in ex parte procedure, the court’s obligation to protect the individuals clashes with the court’s commitment not to interfere with the administrative activities in an anticipatory way. This raises the question, whether and under what argumentation the preventive securities in tax procedure described above are in compliance with the Article 1 of the first Protocol (regulating ownership rights) of the European convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedom (“Convention P1-1”). In the second stage, author analyses alternatives of designing such preventive securities, which would constitute “the best regulation” under the Convention P1-1 as well as general principles of procedural law, regulating the public as well as private interests in the most balanced way. The core of the research relies on comparison of the Convention P1-1, section 1361 of the Estonian Taxation Act (pure security system) and sections 6851 and 6861 of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code (accelerated assessment procedure).
The main problem in prevention of tax frauds relates to situations where the tax payer, getting aware of the tax procedure and possible tax liability, starts to dispossess or hide its assets in order to hinder the efficiency of tax enforcement procedure. In such cases, the state may determine the tax liability and enforce it, but due to the lack of assets, the outcome of the enforcement procedure is relatively predictable. To prevent such outcome, whether due to fraudulent activities or not, several jurisdictions have adopted preventive securities measures, under which the tax authority is able to secure the payment of yet undetermined tax liability in a situation where there is a reason to believe that the ordinary enforcement procedure may be jeopardized (Estonian Taxation Act § 1361, U.S. Internal Revenue Code § 6851 and § 6861). This represents principle of precaution in tax procedure. When securing the payment of conjectural tax debt, several critical legal concerns emerge. The main question is, which is the level of precision of defining the risk that the tax payer will become insolvent. This is the main ground for applying the preventive securities. The same question emerges when it comes town to considering the unidentified tax liability itself. Uncertainty in these matters rise serious problems with the principle of legal certainty as well as with legal clarity. In case such preventive measure is priorly sanctioned by the court, especially when in ex parte procedure, the court’s obligation to protect the individuals clashes with the court’s commitment not to interfere with the administrative activities in an anticipatory way. This raises the question, whether and under what argumentation the preventive securities in tax procedure described above are in compliance with the Article 1 of the first Protocol (regulating ownership rights) of the European convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedom (“Convention P1-1”). In the second stage, author analyses alternatives of designing such preventive securities, which would constitute “the best regulation” under the Convention P1-1 as well as general principles of procedural law, regulating the public as well as private interests in the most balanced way. The core of the research relies on comparison of the Convention P1-1, section 1361 of the Estonian Taxation Act (pure security system) and sections 6851 and 6861 of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code (accelerated assessment procedure).
Description
Keywords
maksud, maksukohustus, tõkendid, maksumenetlus, maksukuriteod, ennetamine, Euroopa Liidu õigus, maksuõigus, haldusõigus, võrdlev õigusteadus, Eesti, Ameerika Ühendriigid, taxes, tax liability, restraints, tax procedure, tax fraud, prevention, European Union law, tax law, administrative law, comparative law, Estonia, USA