Search

The focus of this dissertation is on analyzing the effect of the right against self-incrimination – known as a procedural principle in criminal law – in tax proceedings. The right against self-discrimination affects both the procedural principles applicable to the tax procedure and the imposition of tax sanctions. In concreto this means influencing the reporting obligations under tax law which could not be applied to traditional criminal proceedings for reasons of self-incrimination. At the same time protection against self-incrimination may in certain situations affect the use of tax increases and other administrative sanctions as a coercion to fulfill taxpayers’ disclosure obligations. The legislative changes that may be required to ease the tension between right of self-incrimination and tax regulations are also introduced as part of the research. The legal research observes the present doctrine in Finland. The perspectives of the research analysis take into account both the legal protection of taxpayers and the implementation of an efficient tax procedure. Based on the research analysis, the status and applicability of the right against self-discrimination in tax proceedings are considered local. The concept of prosecution under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights have been the driving force behind the practice of this subject. However, the scope of the right against self-incrimination in tax law is not entirely clear in the case-law either. It must also be kept in mind that the privilege against self-incrimination is not entirely absolute, even in the core area of the criminal procedures. Based on the case-law we can find that the right is flexible and not an absolute procedural rule. The key issue is the fairness of the procedure, for which case-specific conclusions must be drawn. Before determining the scope of the right against self-incrimination in tax proceedings the core content of the right and its significance in general must first be assessed. In the research it is concluded that the core includes the right to remain silent. However, especially in proceedings outside the core area of criminal law the right against self-incrimination should not be seen as a right to give disinformation in the process without adverse consequences. The reason for this are the tax procedural rules which on the other hand require the taxpayer to disclose true and fair information. It is also justified to assume that the scope of the protection against self-incrimination can be applied to legal persons in addition to natural persons. It is essential to emphasize that requiring information from a taxpayer solely for the purpose of assessment of taxes is not problematic. The interpretative parts relate firstly to the earliest starting point for the right against self-incrimination in cases in which the tax procedure has a sufficient connection to a criminal matter. In the Finnish national legal praxis the privilege is applied mainly when a preliminary investigation is pending and related to the same facts with the tax proceedings. However, the views expressed in the legal literature are more diverse and it is not possible to set such a categorical starting point for this privilege. The natural starting point could be the time when an authority develops an actual suspicion of a criminal offense against the taxpayer. In this case one can also talk about an imminent threat of prosecution. An actual and imminent suspicion of a criminal offense may therefore also arise during an investigation done by the tax authorities. On the other hand, one kind of an open question is the applicability of the right against self-incrimination in the tax procedure as such when it has no connection to a traditional criminal procedure. The tax increases used in the tax procedure are not a recent phenomenon but have for a long period of time been an essential part of the sanction system of tax law. It remains somehow open if a tax procedure may be categorized as a ‘criminal proceeding’, because tax increases as administrative sanctions might be seen as ‘criminal’ penalties. Consequently, there is a danger of differentiated legal remedies and the creation of a two-tier control system, even though systematic and presumed tax increases have been considered possible and necessary to safeguard an effective tax system. According to the case-law tax increases may become problematic if they are used in a double sanction context, i.e. both a procedural and a substantive tax sanction would be imposed at the same time. This however does not seem to be a serious problem in Finland. A local special feature is also the problem of voluntary disclosures and the so-called problem of a blank tax return. These problems exist mainly due to the fact that the tax procedure is based on the obligation to file a tax return on one’s own initiative. This applies even in situations in which a taxpayer has committed a tax offence (or another crime) in the past and would be incriminated by filing a tax return. It is not possible to completely eliminate these problems, neither can the tension associated with them be significantly alleviated by means of legal interpretation. As a result the legislator should consider measures to better combine the taxpayers’ rights with the efficient tax procedure. Some recommendations for the legislator are introduced in this research. According to the case law, a distinction can also be made between the statements of a taxpayer and the pre-existing real evidence for the purposes of privilege against self-discrimination. This practice, called the Saunders Doctrine, is logical when pursuing the material truth. Especially in cases that presumably are potential targets of criminal proceedings it is often necessary to use objective real evidence when investigating the case. Obtaining real evidence is not as problematic as demanding statements from the taxpayer. In addition to the recommendations related to the interpretation of the law, the conclusions of this dissertation include some suggestions relating to the reform of legislation. For the sake of clarity, the application of the taxpayers’ right against self-incrimination – and the authorities’ duty to notify taxpayers of this right – should be provided in the Tax Procedure Act. The scope of the tax increases could also be clarified by adjusting the provisions related to tax increases. In that case the legislature could ensure that procedural tax increases are not used as a coercion in cases which proceed to criminal proceedings. In addition the procedural penalties should not be imposed in cases in which substantive tax increases are used. On the other hand in order to ensure an efficient tax procedure certain new coercive means, e.g. the right to seize accounting records, should be granted to the Tax Administration. The problems related to the voluntary disclosure situations can be alleviated through a new regulation of effective repentance. The legislative reforms suggested in the dissertation should be discussed in more detail in further research. In addition, broader comparative legal aspects would be valuable topics to be analyzed further. Väitöskirjassa systematisoidaan itsekriminointisuojan soveltamisalaa vero-oikeudessa ja arvioidaan yksityiskohtaisesti verotusmenettelyyn liittyviä tilanteita, joissa itsekriminointisuoja aktualisoituu. Teoksessa käsitellään yksityiskohtaisesti erityisesti seuraavia aiheita: • Milloin verovelvollisen kohtaama rikosoikeudellisen syytteen uhka on siinä määrin ilmeinen, että itsekriminointisuojaa sovelletaan verotusmenettelyssä, joka itsessään on hallinnollinen menettely? • Voidaanko itsekriminointisuojaa soveltaa verotusmenettelyssä siksi, että rikosoikeudellisen rangaistuksen sijaan verovelvollista uhkaa rikosoikeudelliseen rangaistukseen rinnastuva veronkorotus (hallinnollinen rikosprosessi)? Toisin sanoen voiko hallinnollinen verotusmenettely itsessään muuttua itsekriminointisuojan näkökulmasta rikosoikeudelliseen prosessiin rinnastuvaksi (verotusmenettelyn sisäinen itsekriminointisuoja)? • Kuinka verotusmenettelyssä voidaan itsekriminointisuoja huomioon ottaen yhtäältä turvata verovelvollisen asianmukainen oikeusturva ja toisaalta veroviranomaisen toimintamahdollisuudet sekä tehokas verotusmenettely? • MIten itsekriminointisuoja tulisi ottaa huomioon oikeushenkilöiden kohdalla? • Miltä osin itsekriminointisuojaa tulee soveltaa verotusmenettelyssä sivullisilmoittajiin eli kolmansiin tahoihin? Tutkimuksessa tuodaan esiin myös lainsäädännön uudistustarpeita, jotka on syytä ottaa itsekriminointisuojan vuoksi huomioon. OTM, VT, KTM Mikko Laapas on rikosprosessiin ja vero-oikeuteen erikoistunut lakimies, jolla on monipuolinen kokemus tämän kirjan tutkimusteemoista. Hän on työskennellyt muun ohella asianajosektorilla, tuomioistuinlaitoksessa ja eri verovalvontatehtävissä Verohallinnossa.

Interpretation of tax rules has major societal impacts. This has become more pronounced in recent years, as there has been extensive media coverage of corporate tax avoidance. Even though tax avoidance has been the subject of extensive academic research, some aspects of it remain understudied. This doctoral thesis examines what kind of role legal scholarship plays in tax minimization and tax avoidance. In addition, the thesis discusses the political implications of tax law interpretation. Tax law scholars often assume that legal scholarship generally adds positive elements to legal interpretation or that it promotes the legitimacy of the tax system and thus serves the public interest. In contrast, the thesis takes a critical perspective on tax scholarship and asks what kind of economic and political power is exercised in it. Furthermore, the project examines the impact of seemingly neutral tax law research on the acceptance of legal structures that allow aggressive tax planning. The research's theoretical basis is critical legal studies, an approach that emphasizes the importance of legal indeterminacy and the value-laden nature of legal interpretation. The dissertation includes a summary and four articles. The article I discusses how the tax law interpretation can be understood through the perspective of political ideology. The article demonstrates the political stakes in the interpretive choices made by scholars and judges when applying tax norms in various fact situations. It is argued that the interpretation of anti-avoidance norms, in particular, is critical for competing political projects. Article II of the dissertation contends that tax scholarship suffers from conflicts of interest caused by legal scholars' involvement in legal practice. Combining practical work and research creates role conflicts for legal scholars, with significant impact for the discipline as a whole. Article III of the thesis presents a case study of adjudication regarding the legal permissibility of a novel corporate tax avoidance scheme. The article demonstrates how the advocacy firms involved in the case produced scholarly works that benefited their business interests in interpreting the relevant tax code provisions. It is argued that the objective of the tax consultancy companies involved was to hinder the application of the anti-tax avoidance clause. Article IV examines the doctrine on legality principle in tax law. While scholars widely agree on the general importance of the principle for the tax system, there is a pervasive disagreement about its implications for legal interpretation. According to the article, there are two competing versions of the principle that have different implications for tax law interpretation. In addition, the article demonstrates how these different versions of the principle empower different societal groups and favour competing societal interests. The thesis demonstrates how conflicts of interest in tax scholarship may lead to bias in tax law interpretation. Because a significant proportion of tax scholars work in tax consulting, research in the field emphasizes the interests of the tax consulting industry. The study illustrates, how tax research can act as an enabling factor that improves the ability of economically powerful actors to minimize their taxes while reducing the democratic legitimacy of the tax system in general. Thus, the study broadens the prevailing perception of the political influence of the tax consulting industry and presents a novel way of understanding aggressive tax planning as a regulatory failure. The dissertation concludes that more attention should be paid to conflicts of interest in legal research. Further research is needed to examine how conflicts of interest affect scholarship in different areas of law. Yritysten aggressiivinen verosuunnittelu on noussut viime aikoina voimakkaasti julkiseen keskusteluun ja uutisotsikoihin. Vaikka verosuunnittelu on laajasti tutkittu ilmiö, on siinä yhä vähäiselle huomiolle jääneitä puolia. Tässä väitöstutkimuksessa kysytään, miten vero-oikeudellinen tutkimus mahdollistaa aggressiivista verosuunnittelua. Lainopillinen verotutkimus nähdään usein teknisenä asiantuntijatyönä, joka lisää lainkäytön ennustettavuutta tai auttaa tuomareita löytämään perustellun tulkintavaihtoehdon kiperissä tulkintakysymyksissä. Tutkimuksessa otetaan sen sijaan kriittinen näkökulma vero-oikeustieteeseen ja kysytään, minkälaista taloudellista ja poliittista valtaa siinä käytetään. Lisäksi tarkastellaan, miten näennäisesti neutraali verotutkimus vaikuttaa aggressiivista verosuunnittelua mahdollistavien oikeudellisten rakenteiden hyväksymiseen oikeuskäytännössä. Tutkimuksen teoreettisen perustan muodostaa kriittinen lainoppi, jossa painotetaan oikeuden perustavanlaatuista monitulkintaisuutta ja lain tulkinnan viimekätistä arvosidonnaisuutta. Väitöskirja koostuu yhteenvedosta ja neljästä osajulkaisusta. Osajulkaisussa I kysytään, miten verolakien tulkintaa voidaan ymmärtää poliittisen ideologian näkökulmasta. Osajulkaisussa esitetään, minkälaisia veropoliittisia vaikutuksia on oikeudellisten asiantuntijoiden tulkintakannoilla erilaisissa verolainsäädäntöä koskevissa tulkintakiistoissa. Erityisesti verolainsäädännön veronkiertolausekkeiden tulkintakäytännön esitetään olevan keskeistä kilpailevien poliittisten projektien sääntelytavoitteiden kannalta. Väitöskirjan osajulkaisussa II argumentoidaan, että lainopillinen verotutkimus kärsii intressiristiriidoista, jotka johtuvat oikeustieteilijöiden sivutöistä. Käytännön töiden ja tutkimuksen yhdistäminen johtaa oikeustieteilijöillä roolien ristiriitoihin, jolla on merkittäviä vaikutuksia koko tieteenalan ja sen tutkimustehtävien kannalta. Osajulkaisussa III tehdään tapaustutkimus uudenlaisen verojärjestelyn verotuksellista hyväksyttävyyttä koskevasta oikeusprosessista ja siihen liittyvästä lainopillisesta tulkintakiistasta. Osajulkaisussa arvioidaan verokonsulttiyhtiöillä työskentelevien verotutkijoiden tuottamaa lainopillista kirjallisuutta, ja tarkastellaan, miten se edistää yhtiöiden intressiä tulkintakiistassa. Osajulkaisu IV käsittelee vero-oikeudellista lakisidonnaisuuden periaatetta. Vaikka periaatteen merkitys vero-oikeudessa on laajasti tunnustettu, sen tulkintavaikutuksista vallitsee sitkeä erimielisyys. Osajulkaisussa arvioidaan lakisidonnaisuuden periaatetta koskevaa tulkintakiistaa erilaisten taloudellisten intressitahojen ja poliittisten ideologioiden kannalta. Tutkimus osoittaa, että vero-oikeudellisen tutkimuksen intressiristiriitojen vuoksi tutkimusala vinouttaa verolainsäädännön tulkintaa. Koska merkittävä osa verotutkijoista työskentelee verokonsulttialalla, painottuvat alalla tuotetussa tutkimuksessa verokonsulttiyhtiöiden ja näiden asiakkaiden intressit. Tutkimuksessa esitetään, kuinka verotutkimus voi toimia tekijänä, joka parantaa taloudellisesti vahvojen yhteiskunnallisten tahojen mahdollisuuksia minimoida verojaan ja samalla vähentää verolain tulkinnan demokraattista legitiimiyttä. Näin ollen tutkimuksessa laajennetaan vallitsevaa käsitystä verokonsulttialan poliittisesta vallasta, minkä lisäksi siinä esitetään uudenlainen tapa ymmärtää aggressiiviseksi verosuunnitteluksi kutsutun sääntelyongelman syntyä. Väitöskirjassa esitetään, että oikeustieteessä tulisi kiinnittää enemmän huomioita tutkijoiden intressiristiriitoihin. Jatkotutkimuksessa tulisi selvittää miten intressiristiriidat vaikuttavat oikeustieteeseen eri oikeuden aloilla.