Civilinės ir mokesčių teisės sąlyčio ir atribojimo problemos
| Author(s) | |
|---|---|
Dovidauskas, Mindaugas | Mokestinių ginčų komisija prie Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybės |
| Date Issued |
|---|
2006 |
Straipsnyje tyrinėjamos problemos, kylančios tuos pačius visuomeninius santykius vertinant civilines ir mokesčiu teisės aspektais, analizuojamas šių teisės šakų santykis. Sprendžiamas klausimas, ar įmanomas to paties juridinio fakto (pvz., sudaryto sandorio) skirtingas vertinimas civilinės ir mokesčių teisės požiuriu. Daugiausia dėmesio straipsnyje skiriama mokesčių administratoriaus atliekamam sandorio vertės koregavimui ir klausimui, ar tokiu koregavimu nepažeidžiama privati autonomija ir sutarčių laisvės principas. Straipsniu nesiekiama atlikti išsamios minėtų teisės šakų atribojimo problemų analizės – nagrinėjamos kelios dažniausiai praktikoje pasitaikančios problemos, siūlomi jų sprendimo budai.
The present article contains a brief analysis of some chosen points, when civil and tax law is crossed. The problems that come when the same social relationships are valuing from two different positions: civil law and tax law are discussed from various positions. The authors state that it is not easy to delimitate civil and tax law when talking about the same legal relation. Some problems arise when it is tried to part the regulation fields of the mentioned branches of law. For instance, the legal transaction by norms of civil law can be acknowledged illegal by tax law. That’s why tax administrator has a right to an instrument, which could help him to prevent from fraudulent taxpayers. This instrument is established in the 69 th Article of Law on tax administration. Also it is stated that one of the main conditions to change tax burden in this situation is an aim to get tax benefit. When there is no aim to get any tax benefit, tax administrator can’t replace tax burden even if tax benefit is got. Tax administrator could gain the right to correct tax burden only if it is proven that the main aim of a transaction was to get any tax benefit. So that is why the possibility estimating the same juridical fact in separate versions according to the branch of law (civil or tax law) is justifiable. Tax administrator hasn’t duty to litigate a transaction in civil court when adjusting tax consequences of this transaction. Tax administrator hasn’t duty to correct consequences of a transaction if it is illegal by civil law as well. It is stated that it is impossible to make a presumption of priority of tax law against civil law or vice versa in the article. These branches of law are independent, detached and equal. The question where are the borders of the tax and civil law must be solved according to the specifics of appreciable relationship. The civil norms can be applied in tax law only in two cases.