Gloss to the decision of the Supreme Administrative Court of June 6th 2018, II FSK 1525/16 concerning donor’s instruction and the gift and inheritance tax
Gloss to the decision of the Supreme Administrative Court of June 6th 2018 (II FSK 1525/16)
Łukasz Karczyński
Uniwersytet Gdański, Wydział Prawa i AdministracjiAbstract
The gloss concerns the controversial decision of the Supreme Administrative Court, according to which the donor’s instruction, performed for the benefit of the donor himself, constitutes a burden that reduces the tax base of
the gift and inheritance tax. The paper aims to critically analyze the argumentation presented by the court and to suggest a different way of solving
legal interpretation problems in terms of the tax consequences of the donor’s
instruction. In the author’s opinion, this judgment should be assessed as incorrect, primarily due to the omission of the essence of the instruction, which
was not – as the Supreme Administrative Court seems to assume – the performance of an abstract consideration to a third party, but the conclusion of
a sale agreement under which the recipient received ownership of real property without reducing his assets. Therefore, if as a result of the instruction
there was no reduction in the assets of the recipient, the tax base should not
be reduced either. This conclusion is also supported by a textual interpretation,
as the Gift and Inheritance Tax Act refers to the “value of the burden” resulting from the instruction, and not to the bearing of the burden itself – which
the court also seems not to notice. The value of the burden of the obligation to
purchase the property is nil, as the result is that the recipient disposes of the
cash, but at the same time acquires ownership of the property (assuming that
the property is purchased at market price). Such an interpretation is also
consistent with the general purpose of the Act (imposing a tax on purchases
free of charge) and with the civil law’s understanding of the instruction (an
order to act in favour of the recipient himself does not reduce the value of his
property in the light of private law).
References
Dudek P., Koniec podatku od spadków i darowizn, „Dziennik Gazeta Prawna” z 7 czerwca 2018 r. Google Scholar
Jezioro J. [w:] Gniewek E., Machnikowski P. (red.), Kodeks cywilny. Komentarz, Warszawa 2017. Google Scholar
Hanusz A., Lipińska A., Polecenie jako ciężar darowizny w podatku od spadków i darowizn. Glosa do wyroku Naczelnego Sądu Administracyjnego z dnia 6 czerwca 2018 r., II FSK 1526/16, „Orzecznictwo Sądów Polskich” nr 1/2019. Google Scholar
Mularski K. [w:] Gutowski M. (red.), Kodeks cywilny. Tom II. Komentarz. Art. 450-1088, Warszawa 2016. Google Scholar
Planiol M., Podręcznik prawa cywilnego. O darowiznach i testamentach, Warszawa 1922. Google Scholar
Safjan M. [w:] Pietrzykowski K., Kodeks cywilny. Tom II. Komentarz. Art. 450-1088. Przepisy wprowadzające, Warszawa 2015 Google Scholar
Smoter K., Glosa aprobująca do wyroków Naczelnego Sądu Administracyjnego z 6 czerwca 2018 r. w sprawach II FSK 1525/16 i II FSK 1526/16, „Studia Prawnoustrojowe” nr 51 (2021). Google Scholar
Sokołowski K.P., Darowizna z poleceniem a negotium mixtum cum donatione w praktyce notarialnej, Rejent nr 4/2011. Google Scholar
Tarka A., Darowizna z poleceniem bez podatku - przełomowy wyrok NSA, „Rzeczpospolita” z 7 czerwca 2018 r. Google Scholar
Trzaskowski R. [w:] Gudowski J. (red.), Kodeks cywilny. Komentarz. Tom V. Zobowiązania. Część szczegółowa, Warszawa 2017. Google Scholar
Wilejczyk M., Darowizna obciążona poleceniem, „Państwo i Prawo” nr 5/2013. Google Scholar
Uniwersytet Gdański, Wydział Prawa i Administracji
