Teisinės pareigos deklaruoti įsigytą turtą ir gautas pajamas vykdymo vertinimas pagal teismų praktiką civilinėse bylose

LTStraipsnyje analizuojama, kaip teismų praktikoje, nagrinėjant atskirų kategorijų civilines bylas, realiai veikia Lietuvos Respublikos mokesčių administravimo įstatymo nuostata dėl pareigos informuoti mokesčių administratorių apie gautas pajamas ir įsigytą turtą, kuria siekta gauti informacijos, reikšmingos nedeklaruotoms pajamoms ir nepagrįstiems turto įsigijimo šaltiniams nustatyti, taip pat mokestinei prievolei nustatyti ir tinkamam jos vykdymui užtikrinti. Straipsnyje trumpai aptariami atskiri teismų praktikos atvejai, kuriais parodoma, kaip ir kodėl tinkamai neveikia gyventojų mokestinių prievolių vykdymo kontrolė, nepasiekiamas pakeistų teisinių reguliavimų norimas tikslas. [Iš leidinio]

ENThe speciˆfics of economic relations always holds a social and economic impact, therefore every promulgation, amendment, or termination of a legal act leads to discussion. This article deals with amendments to the Law on Tax Administration of the Republic of Lithuania, dedicated to control the shadow business and failures to pay taxes. When it comes to the analysis of efforts made by the legislator to control the shadow business, the review of only those rules that are established for more effective control over the enforcement of tax obligations is not enough. The effectiveness of afore mentioned control is based on collection of information regarding undeclared income and undue sources of acquisition of assets. Analysis of legal constraints that make the disclosure of this kind of information problematic, is important for the assessment of the effectiveness as well. It is assumed that changes in the legal regulation and, in certain cases, the formal attitude of the tax administrator towards the current development of economic relations result in an increase of the workload of the courts, dealing with aforementioned kind of civil cases. The data, obtained by courts in civil cases where a procedural decision has to be made on the basis of evidence presented by one of parties or on a basis of formal assessment of evidence in this study has been assessed.The cases where the tax administrator was not able to verify the information provided by taxpayers with testimony of third parties on obtained properly were analyzed. Summarizing, it can be stated that the one-time information obligation given to taxpayers was not sufficiently effective, i.e. the goal set in the law has been achieved incompletely. The tax administrator links the changes in the Law on Tax Administration and related legal acts to the fact that in tax administration practice there are quite frequent cases of delinquent behaviour of tax payers. In those cases, the cheating taxpayers - natural persons - try to prove unjustiˆed enrichment by false documents or explanations that clearly do not correspond to reality. Moreover, the tax administrator must refute those explanations. However, the application of the principle of the presumption of guilt in tax laws as well as the desire to ease the burden of proof that way is debatable. In such case, the tax administrator, being responsible for collection of the correct information, that is necessary to collect the tax, does not act based on the principle onus probandi (the party who alleges the affirmative of any proposition shall prove it). [From the publication]