Nekilnojamojo turto apmokestinimo konstitucingumo problema

Šiame straipsnyje daugiausia dėmesio skiriama nekilnojamojo turto apmokestinimo reformai Lietuvoje ir šio mokesčio galimos kolizijos su Lietuvos Respublikos Konstitucija analizei. Užtrukęs naujojo nekilnojamojo turto mokesčio įstatymo priėmimas bei jo kritika verčia permąstyti, ar šis mokestis būtų suderinamas su Lietuvos Respublikos Konstitucijoje numatytomis teisėmis ir laisvėmis bei teisinės valstybės principais. Pasaulinė praktika rodo, kad administruojant šį mokestį gana aktyviai dalyvauja vietos savivaldos institucijos, o mokestinės įplaukos dažniausiai yra vienas iš esminių vietos savivaldos institucijų finansavimo šaltinių. Atsižvelgiant į tai, straipsnyje taip pat persvarstoma, ar ateityje vietos savivaldos institucijų įtraukimas į šio mokesčio administravimą būtų suderinamas su konstitucinėmis nuostatomis. Apibendrinant aptariami bendrieji apmokestinimo konstitucingumo klausimai bei tai, kaip valstybei derėtų planuoti savo įplaukas, kad nepažeistų šalies gyventojų teisių bei teisėtų lūkesčių. Straipsnyje taikyti loginės analizės, lyginamosios teisėtyros, sisteminis bei statistinės analizės metodai.

Until 2002 almost all the laws which regulate taxable income to be transferred to the state budget were enacted. However Lithuanian tax reform was not finalized until now, as state financial institutions have not contributed enough to the problem of property taxation and funding of municipalities. In addition, the political debates on taxation of residential property as well as discussion on the proportion of property tax in the gross taxable income impeded successful implementation of new legislation on property taxation. Even though property taxes could be justified for their fiscal efficiency and positive impact on sustainable urbanisation, it could be alleged that they violate Constitution, especially in respect of inviolability of proprietary rights, equity against the law and the principle of rule of law. The analysis of contemporary practice of Constitution Court of the Republic of Lithuania and the most outstanding rulings of foreign Constitutional Courts leads to conclude that property taxes as well as other taxes should not be considered as violating constitutional freedoms. The state shall have a right to decide on its particular financial resources and the form thereof. Sole taxation could not be regarded as violating proprietary rights. However tax burden must not strangle a taxpayer compelling him to transfer property which has been used for personal needs or substantially hamper commercial activity. So far as a particular tax leads to such consequences, it could be declared unconstitutional. Furthermore, the principle of equity against the law implies that all taxpayer are to be treated according to non-discriminatory regulations. The interpretation of this principle suggests that all the appraisal of property for taxation purposes should be executed according to the similar rules in respect of all the taxpayers. Moreover, the calculation of the tax should be made on the basis of proportional capacities of all taxpayers to pay it.