- citations in SCIndeks: 0
- citations in CrossRef:0
- citations in Google Scholar:[
 ]
- visits in previous 30 days:20
- full-text downloads in 30 days:12
|
|
|
2016, vol. 64, iss. 1, pp. 280-300
|
|
The effects of admonishment on statute of limitations in tax law
Uticaj opomene za plaćanje poreskog duga na tok poreske zastarelosti
Keywords: admonishment for tax debt; statute of limitations of tax administration to establish and collect tax debt; tax act; tax administrative act; union of the judicial order
Abstract
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.
Sažetak
U članku se analizira pitanje da li opomena za plaćanje poreskog duga prekida tok zastarelosti prava Poreske uprave na utvrđivanje i naplatu poreza ? Autor je analizirao poreskopravni institut opomene za plaćanje poreskog duga kroz praksu poreskih organa (službena mišljenja Ministarstva finansija u pogledu relevantnog instituta) i sudsku praksu (Vrhovnog suda, sada Vrhovnog kasacionog suda, i Ustavnog suda). Ustanovili smo da postoji razilaženje u shvatanju instituta poreske opomene i primene tog instituta u poreskoj praksi. Ustanovljena je tendencija Poreske uprave da, uprkos tome što ovaj institut ne smatra poreskim upravnim aktom, ili aktom pravno rešavajućeg karaktera, tumači opomenu kao akt kojim se zastarelost prekida. Dokazujemo da dostavljanje opomene poreskom dužniku ne prekida tok poreske zastarelosti, jer nije reč o aktu pravno rešavajućeg karaktera, što zakon izričito zahteva.
|
|
|
|
References
|
|
|
Anđelković, M. (2003) Poreske reforme u Republici Srbiji. Beograd: Proinkom
|
|
|
Carić, S., i dr. (1980) Komentar Zakona o obligacionim odnosima. Gornji Milanovac: Kulturni centar, knjiga prva, strana 535
|
|
|
Kijanović, M. (2007) Poreski postupak i Poreska administracija. Beograd: Računovodstvo d.o.o
|
|
1
|
Kulić, M. (2007) Poresko procesno pravo. Beograd: Megatrend univerzitet
|
|
1
|
Lilić, S. (2009) Upravno pravo i upravno procesno pravo. Beograd: Pravni fakultet
|
|
8
|
Milosavljević, B. (2014) Upravno pravo. Beograd: Projuris
|
|
|
Mitrović, A. (1998) Naplata poreza na dohodak građana u praksi. Niš: Proinkom
|
|
47
|
Popović, D. (2012) Poresko pravo. Beograd: Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu
|
|
8
|
Popović, D.M. (2003) Komentar Zakona o poreskom postupku i poreskoj administraciji. Beograd: Cekos IN
|
|
42
|
Popović, D.M. (1997) Nauka o porezima i poresko pravo. Budimpešta: COLPI - Constitutional and Legislative Policy Institute, str. 703
|
|
|
Simon, J., Nobes, C. (2002) The Economics of Taxation, Principles, Policy and Practice. Harlow: Pearson Educated Limited
|
|
14
|
Tomić, Z. (2011) Opšte upravno pravo. Beograd: Pravni fakultet
|
|
|
|
|