Approving gloss to the decision of the Chief Administrative Court of 27 June 2018 (II FSK 1525/16 and 1526/16)
Abstract
The gloss focuses of the issue resulting from the ruling of the Chief Administrative Court relating to the legal effects of the donor's order in the context of reducing the value of the donation, and thus the tax base in the light of the provisions of the inheritance and donation tax Statute. According to the content of art. 7 paragraph 2 of the Act on inheritance and donation tax, if the recipient has been charged with the obligation to comply with the order, the value of the charge is a burden, if it has been carried out. According to the position of tax authorities and administrative courts of lower instances, the donor's order reduces the tax base only if the obligation to perform it in the economic sense imposes a charge on the recipient, leading to the depletion of his property. A different position was taken by the Chief Administrative Court, which ruled that each donator’s order which is carried out, constitutes a burden of donation, regardless of whether the donor charged with it is also its beneficiary. According to the Chief Administrative Court, each order of donator, which is carried out, constitutes a burden of donation. This view follows from the idea, that it is unacceptable to apply an expanding interpretation of tax law provisions and to fulfil the gap in tax law in such a way that the interpreter introduces an additional condition, the fulfilment of which makes it possible to reduce the value of the donation by the burden of the instruction carried out. It is therefore unacceptable to differentiate the legal nature of the order due to who is its beneficiary
Keywords:
inheritance and donation tax, donor order, donation, the burden of donation, the autonomy of tax law.References
Babiarz S., Spadek i darowizna w prawie cywilnym i podatkowym, Warszawa 2019. Google Scholar
Brzeziński B., Prawo podatkowe a prawo cywilne, [w:] B. Brzeziński (red.), Prawo podatkowe. Teoria. Instytucje. Funkcjonowanie, Toruń 2009. Google Scholar
Brzeziński B., Prawo podatkowe. Zagadnienia teorii i praktyki, Toruń 2017. Google Scholar
Dmowski S., [w:] G. Bieniek (red.), Komentarz do kodeksu cywilnego Ks. 3. Zobowiązania, t. 2, Warszawa 2009. Google Scholar
Gudowski J. (red.), Kodeks cywilny. Komentarz, t. 5, Zobowiązania. Część szczegółowa, Warszawa 2017. Google Scholar
Lackoroński B., [w:] K. Osajda (red.), Kodeks cywilny. Komentarz, t. 2, Warszawa 2016. Google Scholar
Lewandowska E., Uniwersalizm instytucji bezpodstawnego wzbogacenia a nienależne świadczenia na rzecz organu podatkowego, „Studia Prawnoustrojowe” 2015, nr 28. Google Scholar
Mastalski R., Prawo podatkowe, Warszawa 2019. Google Scholar
Nieczepa O., Orłowski J., Penalizacja fałszerstwa faktur, „Studia Prawnoustrojowe” 2018, nr 41. Google Scholar
Nita A., Stosunek podatkowoprawny, [w:] B. Brzeziński (red.), Prawo podatkowe. Teoria. Instytucje. Funkcjonowanie, Toruń 2009. Google Scholar
Stecki L., [w:] J. Winiarz (red.), Kodeks cywilny z komentarzem, t. 2, Warszawa 1989 Google Scholar
