Search

The main purpose of this text is to demonstrate the fundamental importance and the centrality and the influence of the taxable event in the tax law relations. After establishing that the taxable event is placed on the center of these relations from the beginning, the author states that it shapes the structure of those relations and influences, on a consistent and decisive way, their development. In order to achieve the real importance of this concept it is mandatory to distinguish between the tax event and the tax act. The tax event occurs by the action or inaction of the taxpayer's generating the statutory incidence. His legitimacy lays directly on the constitutional law. On the other hand, the tax act is generated by the administration, according to the administrative law commands. Based on the centrality of the taxable event, the author stresses the limited contemplation by the judicial decisions of that unique position in two situations: the consideration of retroactive taxes by the Portuguese Constitutional Court and the admission of nullity of tax acts by the Portuguese Supreme Administrative Court., Neste artigo procura-se demonstrar a importância fundamental da centralidade do facto tributário nas relações do direito fiscal. Assim, após localizar o facto tributário na constituição e desenvolvimento dessas relações, o autor salienta a importância da distinção entre o facto tributário da responsabilidade do contribuinte, que gera o imposto e tem por suporte o direito constitucional, e o acto tributário da responsabilidade da administração, que administra o imposto e tem por suporte o direito administrativo. Com base nessa centralidade, aborda a sua consideração limitada pela jurisprudência em duas situações: na consideração de impostos retroactivos pelo Tribunal Constitucional e na admissão de actos tributários nulos pelo Supremo Tribunal Administrativo.

Breddemaster Lån fra selskap til aksjonær har økt betydelig etter innføringen av aksjonærmodellen i 2006 (NOU 2014:13). Dette har medført en rekke utfordringer for skattemyndighetene da det blant annet har ført til sammenblanding av selskapets og aksjonærs økonomi, og manglende eller ufullstendig formalisering av låneforholdet har vært en utfordring (ibid.). Høsten 2015 ble det innført en lovendring i aksjeloven for blant annet å forhindre omgåelse eller utsettelse av utbyttebeskatning (skatteloven § 10-11 fjerde ledd). Lovendringen går ut på at lån fra selskap til personlig aksjonær skal anses som skattemessig utbytte hos mottakeren. Formålet med denne studien er å se på effekter av lovendringen ved å undersøke hvilken betydning den har for selskapers atferd. Studien tar for seg noen økonomiske virkninger av skatteloven § 10-11 fjerde ledd (omklassifiseringsregelen), gjennom å sammenligne mengden lån til eiere og selskapsspesifikke faktorer. På bakgrunn av dette formuleres følgende problemstilling: “Hvordan påvirker endringen i aksjeloven § 10-11 fjerde ledd praksisen om lån fra selskap til aksjonær, og hvilke faktorer påvirker omfanget av lån som gis til eiere?” For å besvare problemstillingen er det gjennomført en kvantitativ undersøkelse, hvor det tas utgangspunkt i regnskapstall innrapportert fra selskapene selv, gjennom skattemelding og næringsoppgave. Dataen er mottatt som sekundærdata fra Skatteetaten. Problemstillingen er drøftet i lys av teori og forskning som omhandler skatteatferd. Studiens teoretiske rammeverk knyttes til adopsjonsteori og prinsipal-agentteorien. Funnene i denne studien viser en reduksjon i mengden lån fra 2014 til 2016. Videre viser analysene signifikant sammenheng mellom utbytte og lån til eierne i årene 2015 og 2016. Dette er i henhold til forventet hypotese. Et interessant funn er at dersom selskapet har revisor, er det sannsynlig at det gis mer lån til eierne, mens om selskapet har revisor, som er en av de 4 store, er sannsynligheten stor for at det gis mindre mengde lån. Basert på tidligere forskning, var det forventet at begge kategoriene skulle ha negativ sammenheng med lån til eiere. Gjennom masterutredningen er det avdekket flere sammenhenger mellom de undersøkte variablene i utvalget og mengden lån som gis til eierne i selskapet. Studien gir således et innblikk i hvordan noen selskaper tilpasser seg en lovendring, omklassifiseringsregelen i dette tilfellet. Engelsk sammendrag (abstract) Loans from companies to shareholders have increased significantly since the introduction of the shareholder model in 2006 (NOU 2014:13). This has led to several challenges for the tax authorities as it has led to the collapse of the company and shareholder's finances, and the lack of or incomplete formalization of the loan relationship has been a challenge (ibid). In the autumn of 2015, a change in the law was introduced in order to prevent circumvention or postponement of dividend taxation (Section 10-11, fourth paragraph tax act). The change in the law assumes that loans from companies to personal shareholders shall be deemed tax dividend serrated by the recipient. The purpose of this study is to look at the effects of the law change by examining the importance it has on companies' behavior. The study addresses any financial effects of section 10-11 fourth paragraph of the Tax Act, by comparing the amount of loans to owners and company-specific factors. Based on this, the following problem is formulated: ""How does section 10-11 fourth paragraph of the Tax Act change the practice of loans from company to shareholder, and what factors affect the amount of loans given to shareholders?" In order to answer the issue, a quantitative survey has been carried out, where accounting figures reported from the companies themselves have been carried out through tax returns and business statements. The data has been received as secondary data from the Norwegian Tax Administration. The issue is discussed in light of theory and research concerning tax behavior. The theoretical framework of the study is linked to adoption theory and the principle agent theory. The findings of this study show a reduction in the amount of loans from 2014 to 2016. Furthermore, the analyses show a significant correlation between dividends and loans to the owners in the years 2015 and 2016. This is according to the expected hypothesis. An interesting finding is that if the company has an auditor, it is likely that bigger amount of loans are given to the owners, while if the company has an auditor, which is one of the big 4, the probability is high that less amount of loans are given. Based on previous research, both categories were expected to have a negative correlation with loans to owners. Several effects have been identified between the variables examined in the sample and the amount of loans given to the owners of the company. The study thus provides an insight into how some companies adapt to a change in the law.

Osnivanjem Republike Hrvatske, porezni sustav je trebalo uskladiti s društveno-ekonomskim promjena te zamijeniti novim poreznim sustavom slijedeći primjere poreznih sustava suvremenih država. Poželjan porezni sustav zasniva se na načelima koja mogu postati međusobno konfliktna što onemogućava uspostavu željenog poreznog sustava. Ovim radom su predstavljeni i objašnjeni porezni akti koji se koriste u poreznim postupcima te njihovo značenje i pravne posljedice kako za Poreznu upravu tako i za poreznog obveznika. Autor čitatelje upoznaje s poreznim pravom odnosno zakonima, posebice Općim poreznim zakonom koji se odnose na sudionike poreznog postupka odnosno na državu i stanovništvo. Prikazuje tijek poreznog predmeta, akte koji se koriste te njihovo objašnjenje, odnos i prava sudionika u poreznom postupku te njegovo rješavanje. Također su prikazane razlike poreznog sustava nastale promjenama zakona. Autor posebnu pažnju usmjerava na tijek poreznog nadzora kako bi objedinio i pobliže objasnio sve važne porezne akte koji se koriste u poreznom postupku. Priložen je dokument koji prikazuje porezni postupak u praksi odnosno odnos poreznih sudionika. U navedenom slučaju porezni obveznik ulaže žalbu na porez na promet nekretnina, Porezna uprava odnosno prvostupanjsko tijelo je odbija te poreznog obveznika upućuje na drugostupanjsko tijelo. Drugostupanjsko tijelo žalbu smatra neosnovanom te kao pravni lijek po zakonu navodi tužbu. Tužitelj pokreće postupak u kojem Upravni sud presuđuje u njegovu korist te navedeni predmet vraća na ponovni postupak. By establishing the Republic of Croatia, the tax system should be aligned with socio-economic changes and replaced with the new tax system by following the examples of modern state tax systems. The desired tax system is based on principles that can become mutually conflicting which prevents the establishment of the desired tax system. This work presents and explains the tax acts used in tax procedures, their significance and legal consequences for both the Tax Administration and the taxpayer. The readers are acquainted with the tax laws, in particular the General Tax Law applicable to taxpayers, the state and the population. It shows the course of a tax case, the acts used and their explanation, the relationship and rights of participants in the tax procedure and their resolution. The differences in the tax system created by law changes are also shown. The author pays special attention to the course of tax auditing to unite and explain in detail all the important tax acts used in the taxation process. A document showing the tax procedure in practice or the relationship of tax attorneys is enclosed. In the aforementioned case, the taxpayer invokes a tax on real estate sales tax, the Tax Administration or the first-instance body refuses, and the taxpayer points to the second-instance body. The Appellate Body considers the appeal to be unfounded and as a legal remedy under the law it cites the lawsuit. The Prosecutor initiates a proceeding in which the Administrative Court decides in his favor and returns the case to a retrial.

The scope of analysis in this article is an issue that has been disputed in practice. We ask ourselves does admonishment for tax debt interrupt the term of statute of limitations in tax law ? Author has analysed the statute of limitations in tax law through legal practice of tax authorities (official oppinions of the Ministry of finance regarding the issue at hand) and judicial practice (Supreme court and the Constitutional court). It has been established that there is a difference in understanding the institute of admonishment and its application. It has also been established that, in spite of the fact that tax authorities do not consider admonishment as a tax administrative act or addressing legal act, it is interpreted as sufficient to break the term of statute of limitations. We shall prove that delivery of admonishment to a tax payer does not interrupt or break the term of statute of limitations because it is not an addressing legal act, which is expressly demadned by the law.