Mokesčio apskaičiavimas taikant turinio viršenybės prieš formą principą
Mykolo Romerio universitetas |
| Date |
|---|
2013 |
Straipsnyje, pasitelkiant sisteminės ir teisinės analizės, istorinį, loginį, dokumentinės analizės ir lyginamąjį metodus, remiantis nacionaliniais teisės, Lietuvos mokslininkų ir teisės specialistų darbais, pasitelkiant mokestinių ginčų bylų analizę, sprendžiamos problemos, kylančios mokesčių teisės aiškinimo ir taikymo srityje, t. y. mokesčio apskaičiavimo taikant turinio viršenybės prieš formą principą. Straipsnyje teismų praktikos analizės pagrindu tyrinėjama mokesčių mokėtojo pareiga apskaičiuoti mokestį, pateikiamos mokesčio apskaičiavimo senaties taikymo rekomendacijos, nustatomi atvejai, kuomet pareiga įrodyti mokesčio apskaičiavimo teisingumą tenka mokesčių administratoriui, kuomet – mokesčių mokėtojui.
The aim of the study is to conclude that the principle of substance over form can be applied after assessing the subjective aim of the transaction, the economic content of the transaction, the selected legal form of the transaction and its adequacy for specific conditions, the justification or motive behind the transaction, and tax benefits. The most favourable explanation of the principle of substance over form for a taxpayer is provided in Belgium, where it is prohibited to use tax measures to interfere with the civil legal assessment of a transaction. When there is insufficient evidence to confirm the circumstances specified by either the taxpayer or the tax administrator, a resolution is adopted against the party that failed to provide proof of the circumstances. The following could be the basis for the application of substance over form in tax calculation: failed transactions based on issued accounting documents; intermediate or sham (optional) transactions; a short time interval between transactions in the common chain of transactions or plurality of transactions over a short period of time, when after the final transaction the original property owner continues to hold that property; a great difference between the actual value of the property (services) and the value of the transaction. Abuse of tax laws can be established only when a tax advantage was the main objective pursued by the underlying transactions and the taxpayer’s activities that cause the tax advantage cannot be justified either by economic logic, which is demonstrated by the pursuit of maximum profit at minimum cost, or by other circumstances. On the basis of the analysis of the tax-related cases of law of the European Court of Justice, it can be stated that in deciding the need of the application of substance over form, it is important to evaluate whether there is abuse of the law or fraud (participation in the fraud) in the existing taxation [...]