Evolution of effective forms of tax termination

The expiry of tax obligations should serve to stabilise and ensure the legal relationship between the taxpayer and the tax creditor.

Taxes, which are a legal and economic institution, are an essential source of income in the country, and it is therefore important to determine when the tax liability expires and the tax creditor is no longer able to enforce the claims.

In the current law on 29 August 1997 Tax Ordinance 1 ((c) a closed catalogue of permissible ways of terminating tax obligations is included. In the author's opinion, this is a positive solution, as it serves the abovementioned stability and certainty of relations between these parties.

1. Introduction

The evolution of ways of expiring tax obligations occurred as a result of the introduction of different solutions and modifications successively in the bill with 15 March 1934 - Tax Ordinance 2 , Decrete from 16 May 1946 on tax liabilities 3 ,Decrete from 26 October 1950 on tax liabilities 4 , Act of 19 December 1980 on tax liabilities 5 and in the current O.P.

There were different provisions in those acts in respect of: payment of tax, collection of tax by the payer or the collector, deduction, overpayment or refund, transfer of property or property rights, acquisition of property or property rights in enforcement proceedings.

It should be noted here that not all changes in the form of tax expiration were significant, sometimes only cosmetic.

2. General characteristics of the forms of termination of tax obligations

Tax Ordinance contains a closed catalogue of acceptable ways of terminating tax obligations. In relation to the catalogue contained in the Act of 19 December 1980 on tax liabilities, this catalogue has been expanded more.

New forms have emerged that take greater account of the mutual interests of the taxpayer and the tax creditor and allow them to adjust the manner in which the tax obligation expires to the circumstances of the situation.[6]. The entry into force of the O.P.

was combined with the unification of the creditor rights of the Treasury and the municipality. Until then, tax obligations to the municipality's budget had been effectively terminated only by paying the tax, and the tax settlements with the State Treasury also used the deduction and acquisition of the taxpayer's assets.

At present, the Treasury and local government units are entitled to apply the same measures which lead to the expiry of the tax obligation. The tax liability of the entity bearing the economic burden of the tax expires in whole or in part[7].

Currently, the statutory catalogue includes the following ways of terminating tax obligations 8 :

• 1) payment;
• 2) tax collection by the payer or collector;
• 3) the deduction;
• 4) Overpayment or tax refund;
• 5) failure to collect;
• 6) transfer of property ownership or property rights;
• 7) acquisition of property or property rights in enforcement proceedings;
• 8) remission of arrears;
• 9) limitation;

1. exemption from payment on the basis of Article 14m 9 (exemption from the obligation to pay in the event of an interpretation, subsequently amended or not taken into account in the settlement of the tax case, to the extent that an event is the subject of the interpretation; this results from the principle of non-injury to an entity applying the official interpretation of the tax law 10 );
2. the acquisition of the inheritance entirely by the State Treasury or the local government unit established by the final decision to establish the acquisition of the inheritance, with effect on the date of opening of the inheritance.

All ways of terminating a tax liability are self-contained and mutually exclusive[11]. Tax liability which expired due to payment (Article 59(1)(1) s.p.) cannot expire again second By statute of limitations. It also requires that the tax liability may be partially terminated by payment and partly by statute of limitations. If the taxpayer has paid only part of the tax due, only in the part not covered by this payment may the tax liability be subject to limitation.

Before 1 January 2003 The catalogue of ways out of tax liability was not a closed catalogue as it did not mention the tax refund credit as one of the ways in which the tax obligation expires[12].

The effective expiry of the tax obligations, which leads to the satisfaction of the claims of the tax creditor and the lapse of the ineffective ones, can be distinguished when the obligation expires without the satisfaction of the claims.

An effective way to terminate a tax liability is to pay, collect tax by a payer or collector, deduct, charge an excess, charge a refund, transfer property or property rights and take over property or property rights in enforcement proceedings.

On the other hand, the ineffective way of terminating the tax obligation is to clear the arrears, the limitation period, the omission of collection and the exemption from the obligation to pay should the tax rules be interpreted.

The obligations of tax entities that do not normally bear the economic burden of the tax shall, in whole or in part, expire as a result of: payment, overpayment or tax refund, redemption, acquisition of property or acquisition of property in enforcement proceedings, limitation, exemption from the obligation to pay in the event of an interpretation, subsequently amended or not taken into account in the settlement of the tax case, in so far as the event in question arises (which results from the principle of non-injury to the person applying the tax law)[13].

The temporary effect of the expiry of the tax obligation is the need to cancel the ongoing tax proceeding. In particular, it is unacceptable to initiate and conduct proceedings to determine the amount of the tax liability[14].

3. Effective ways to end tax obligations in Tax Ordinance of 15 March 1934

After the revival of the Polish state In 1918 in force in its territory three different tax regulations of possessing countries, so one the most urgent tasks of the authorities were to harmonise tax legislation, to create a tax system capable of providing the necessary revenue for the proper functioning of the State and its operations. In the process of unification and consolidation of the Polish tax system were mainly guided by German legislation[15].

Tax Ordinance of 1934 was first and the largest, successful attempt to codify Polish general tax law. The importance of this codification is underlined by the fact that many tax solutions currently in force have their source and inspiration in the pre-war provisions of the ordination.

She was at once one of the first type of codification of global general tax law. Earlier such codes were passed in Germany and Czechoslovakia. Tax Ordinance count 212 Articles, some of the most important constructions of general substantive tax law, the tax procedure and the rules of criminal liability for breach of tax law.

This law did not contain a statutory definition of tax. As first It introduced into the Polish tax system tax legal categories, such as tax liability and tax liability, but did not define these concepts.

It was clear from the provisions of the Ordinance that it was the individual tax laws that lay down the facts giving rise to a tax obligation. This obligation was specific through a tax liability, i.e. the adoption by the tax authority of a constitutional decision in the form of a payment order. At the time of the payment order, the tax authority could be regarded as a tax charge[16].

Tax laws could provide for legal obligations, without the need for constitutional decisions, or provide for employer tax collection 17 without the need for a payment order decision[18].

However, the tax authorities issued payment orders as declaratory decisions when the obliged entity to pay, deduct or indemnify the tax failed to pay it or paid it for less. The tax obligation, which was usually the result of a payment order, could have expired by payment, compulsory collection, remission or limitation[19].

The appeal did not suspend or postpone the time limit for payment of the tax.

The condition for payment of the tax due was, as a rule, to deliver the order for payment at the latest at the latest 30 the days before the payment date which was provided for in the Act. Tax settlement should be made in cash. However, it was possible to pay the tax with land, benefits in kind and state securities.

Tax payment in nature is the exception to the principle that taxes are to be paid in cash. This solution justified the high backlog of farmers with a sharp fall in the price of agricultural products during the government's deflationary policy[20].

Compensation, payment of uncontested claims and dues of the State Treasury to the taxpayer from private relations was allowed. The institution to deduct claims against the State Treasury with tax liability is one of the oldest public revenue law institutions[21].

She was already known in Roman law 22 and found itself in a key act governing part of general tax law during the interwar period – Tax Ordinance[23]. A payer holding an uncontested and due claim to the State Treasury, resulting from a private-law relationship, could pay the tax on that claim.[24].

This provision sets out the conditions for the admissibility of the tax deduction relating to claims on the tax law relationship, which in this case are uncontested, due diligence, reciprocity.

The tax payer, within the meaning of the Ordinance, was entitled to apply such a form of payment of the tax, any natural or legal person (also a decrease in the vacancy), subject to individual tax obligations under the laws.[25]. The deduction was made at the request of the payer.

However, it was not possible to determine whether it was acceptable from the exclusive initiative of the State Treasury.[26].

Despite some doubts in the doctrine regarding this matter 27 , Supreme Court 28 stated that the Treasury in principle enjoys the right to lodge a charge of levying tax receivables in the dispute of judging private claims from it, using the relevant provisions of the Code of Obligations[29]. Although the provisions of public law contain certain restrictions on the possibility of deducting tax receivables from private claims, they do not contain restrictions on the deduction of those receivables at the request of the State Treasury[30].

As a general rule, tax obligations were based on constitutional decisions by the tax authorities. A taxpayer who made such defective decisions could suffer damage.

For this reason, it was ordered by the tax authorities that sums unduly or unduly paid for tax liabilities should be credited to the payer against his other claims and, in the absence thereof, returned in cash.[31].

The recoverable or overpayments were subject to interest from the date of payment of the sum to be paid by the tax authorities or as a result of an appeal for wrongly collected 4% A year. The interest rate on overpayments was nothing more than a form of compensation for damage caused by the defective operation of the tax administration.

In the event of no payment of the tax within the time limits and in the manner provided for by the Act, the obligation could be terminated by compulsory recovery. The execution of state taxes and tax tributes, which had already expired, carried out only the tax offices.

The executive body of the tax office was an executioner or other delegated officer[32]. The appeal did not stop the execution, and the security of the unpaid tax still existed exceptionally when there was a danger in case of delay.

The tax office carried them out by seizing and storing movable items, prohibiting the removal and imposition of movable property and the disposition of claims and rights or by appealing to the court for security on immovable property and mortgage rights[33].

The sale was unacceptable and the bail of the debtor relieved him of the security.

Tax offices carried out executions of these cash benefits, other than public taxes, which constituted revenue of the State, local associations, other public institutions, with the privilege of administrative execution granted to themselves.

The administrative execution was therefore almost entirely concentrated in the tax offices, excluding less important and few claims. Judicial enforcement of taxes and tax tributes was allowed only when it was made on real estate, mortgaged claims and other property rights.

Judicial execution could only be carried out if the administrative execution proved to be ineffective or could be presumed to be ineffective and where public claims exceeding 10,000 PLN[34].

Payment of taxes and public taxes following the acquisition of the legal title into the land was introduced In 1933 This solution applied to land-based properties above 50 ha and undeveloped squares in cities.

The acquisition of the property may have taken place in favour of legally ordered state tributes which were privileged to satisfy the property and which were overdue from 1 January 1936, and they have been paid for at least one year.

The same conditions were applied when the Treasury took over land and squares to satisfy local taxes, social security contributions and long-term loans granted by state banks and long-term credit institutions[35].

1. Effective ways to end tax obligations in the Decree 16 May 1946 on tax liabilities

After the end of World War II, only in the initial period in Poland was used a partially codified and relatively modern tax system of the interwar period. As a result of the arrangements of the Yalta Agreement and the Soviet influence of Poland, Soviet standards have increasingly started to apply in Polish tax law.

They were to break the principle of equal treatment between taxpayers in respect of the law and the universality of taxation, differentiation of the tax status of obliged entities depending on their ownership, industry or subordination to the central or local level.

As a result of the political change, the process of decoding tax law began. It was that power had been revoked Tax Ordinance of 1934 and passed three legal acts taking over the tasks of that Regulation: Decree on Tax Obligations 36 , order for tax proceedings 37 and decree - Tax penalty law[38].

After the war, with the issuance of the Decree on Tax Obligations, the regulation of the deduction was amended[39]. At the request of the debtor, the tax liability was deducted from his/her mutual, uncontested and payable debt to the Treasury[40].

The amendment of the rightholder to demand the deduction was the most significant, introduced by decree of 1946 An authorised debtor is any person on whom a tax liability has been imposed. The group of eligible entities was therefore expanded. The definition of a compensated debt to the State Treasury was waived as private.

These claims have been extended to public-law claims[41]. In addition, it is also envisaged to apply the deduction to the termination of tax obligations to local government unions. Under the decree of 1946 There were the most liberal arrangements for compensation in the period from 1918

1. Effective ways to end tax obligations in the Decree 26 October 1950 on tax liabilities

The government took away the Sejm's centuries-old tax laws. This resulted in the emergence of so-called duplicate tax law in Poland during this period. The government, in creating tax law, relied on the power of the National Council to issue decrees with law[42].

In the Decree of the Council of Ministers of 21 September 1950 on the taxation of social economy enterprises, the government granted itself the exclusive right to provide taxes charged to the social economy sector, which at the time was dominant.

This was because of the government's own resolutions, legal acts which did not require publication in promotional journals, for example.[43].

Until the entry into force of the Act on Tax Obligations, the duality of tax legislation was in force in Poland. The government regulated the taxation of the economy and the Sejm dealt with secondary tax issues, regulated by law, i.e. Dog possession tax, housing tax.

A very significant change in the deduction was the regulation introduced by the abovementioned Decree on Tax Obligations with 1950 At the request of the debtor of the non-socialised economy or ex officio on the basis of a decision of the financial authority, the debtor's tax liability was offset against the debtor's mutual, uncontested and due debt to the State, enterprises and state assets, enterprises and assets under State management and cooperative-state centres[44].

The previous tax liability regulation takes over the definitions of the debtor, which was not only the taxpayer 45 , On which he gave a payment order, a payer, but also a person third, liable for the tax on the basis of a decision of the financial authority[46].

Another significant difference was that only the debtor belonging to the non-social economy was entitled to deduct. The Decree ruled on the issue of the deduction at the initiative of the State Treasury, subjecting the deduction to the same conditions as the deduction at the request of the debtor[47].

The list of claims that may have been submitted for deduction has been extended. This extension also concerned claims which, legally speaking, were not claims on the State Treasury but on other legal persons, and not necessarily public ones (just under state management)[48]. The permissibility of the deduction was lower.

According to the assumptions of the State of Real Socialism, the basic revenue of the state budget came from the taxation of individuals of the social economy. In practice, income owed by other entities was of little importance[49].

The deduction during this period was mainly used in relation to the tax obligations of farmers with whom the contractual supply charges were offset. Due to the transformation of the state system into a system based on the system of national councils and the abolition of local government, the previously existing possibility of deductions with tax obligations towards local government unions disappeared[50].

1. Effective ways to terminate tax obligations in the law with 19 December 1980 on tax liabilities

The tax liability was expired by payment of tax, limitation or remission, while the special ways of paying the tax were the deductions and acquisition of assets into the property of the State Treasury[51].

Payment by an economic operator of tax liabilities and other cash benefits to which the provisions of the Tax Obligations Act applied was made in the form of non-cash bank accounts, except where, in accordance with the separate provisions, the payment of these claims was made by securities or by signs of a tax charge or by the collection of taxes by the payer or collector.

The Minister of Finance may have allowed or introduced the payment of certain types of taxation by securities or by tax stamps and may have specified the models of these marks and the rules for their application[52].

Performance three methods of expiring tax obligations: tax payment, limitation, remission. Special ways of paying the tax were to deduct and take over the property of the State Treasury. The effective methods included the payment of tax, deduction and acquisition of property on the property of the State Treasury.

In the material sphere, the expiry of the tax obligation resulted in the fact that the tax authority could not require the taxpayer to pay the tax[53]. Amounts paid and undue taxes paid (overpayments) were automatically subject to outstanding and current tax obligations[54].

In the absence of such obligations, they were in principle reimbursed to the taxable person in an ex officio manner within the time limits three months after the date of the overpayment, unless the taxable person has submitted an application for overpayment for future liabilities.

The tax liability bill also raised a problem as to how to qualify for overpayment. It was possible to recognise an overpayment as a separate way of expiring tax liabilities which were not mentioned in that law. The taxpayer acquired a claim against the State Treasury due to overpayment[55].

Consequently, it was stated in the literature that the crediting of overpayment is in fact a set-off and that the difference exists only in the form of claims by the taxpayer. The overpayment was also included among the claims to be deducted in the tax liability decree from 1946 Such regulations were taken over by the Decree on Tax Obligations with 1950 In the tax liability bill with 1980 the view was formulated 56 , that the overpayment claim may be deducted under the conditions laid down therein[57].

The Supreme Court considers that overpayments are not subject to deduction by the taxable person, but only to credit under the conditions provided for under Article 29 Tax liability laws[58]. This meant that the overpayment was a specific and independent form of tax payment. However, it was not until the General Court’s view was reflected. The identification of deductions and overpayments is an over-interpretation, although the similarity of these institutions cannot be denied.

The basic form of enforcement of the tax liability in the liability act was the tax payment. Could have been cash or cash. Cash payments were made with cash marks or cash trading documents (postage, bank or cash check). Non-cash payment took the form of a transfer order or settlement check.

It should be mentioned that a payment obligation was imposed in the form of non-cash bank accounts for certain entities[59]. In principle, this concerned all economic operators and covered all other claims to which the provisions of the Tax Obligations Act applied.

The tax authority could not refuse to accept payment of the tax regardless of who would carry it out, even without the taxpayer's knowledge. The tax payer was only required to indicate the tax liability that was the source of the payment.

In the initial period of application of the tax liability act, the deduction institution was further amended. The tax liability was subject, at the request of the taxpayer or ex officio, to a deduction from the taxpayer's mutual uncontested and liable liability to the Treasury.

The tax payer was: a socialised economy unit, a legal person and another organisational unit without legal personality, liable to pay tax on its tax liability[60]. The right to deduct social economy units has been restored.

As regards the entity's scope of the right to apply for a charge, it was, to a certain extent, returned to pre-war solutions, excluding, for example, payers (as persons to calculate and collect the tax and to pay it to the proper account), and the principle that the deduction is only subject to a claim against the State Treasury[61].

Tax liabilities were subject, at the request of the taxpayer, and ex officio, to a deduction from the taxpayer's mutual uncontested and payable liability to the State Treasury, including charges resulting from the supply of goods, works and services to state budget entities[62].

Originally, it was not possible to deduct claims for these benefits to state budget entities, as they are certainly organisational and legal components of the Treasury. Credits to the State Treasury may have been granted to the taxpayer for reasons of administrative and civil law. The administrative nature was e.g.

expropriation damages, damages for damage caused by the decision in breach of the provisions on reopening of a case with serious procedural deficiencies 63 or annulment of a flawed decision. The law did not specifically mention civil-law claims which the taxpayer is entitled to.

It is limited to indicating that these are charges resulting from the supply of goods, works and services to state budget units.

The deduction as a special way of paying the tax was possible only after the cumulative fulfilment of several statutory conditions. The claim had to be reciprocal, to be a non-contested claim, and another condition was that the benefits were due. The requirement had to apply to both claims to be deducted.

According to the author of the above-mentioned statutory deductions, which were indicated by the legislator, it should be supplemented by one condition, namely that claims should be homogeneous (monetary). The Supreme Court found that the amounts of overpaid taxes and unduly paid taxes cannot be deducted.

Overpayments shall be credited by the tax authority to taxes on an ex officio basis or upon request only after they have arisen. However, they are never subject to a deduction by the taxpayer[64].

It must also be stressed that the tax authority is obliged to notify the taxable person of the deduction made, whether the deduction is made at the request of the taxpayer or ex officio.

Payment by taking over assets on the property of the State Treasury has not been regulated in too much detail either in the provisions of the Tax Obligations Act or in any implementing act. The tax authorities did not take a clear position on the interpretation of the provision indicating this form of payment[65].

Such a situation may have been due to the fact that this form was marginal in practice.

The acquisition of assets to the State Treasury took place with consent two parties, no doubt the acquisition of the property on the property of the State Treasury should take place through a civil law agreement 66 (bilateral) by the taxable person and the competent tax authority.

Certainly the lack of the possibility of taking over assets for tax liabilities towards the municipality was a particularly embarrassing situation[67]. Neither party could effectively request such an agreement.

If the tax authority could arbitrarily result in the payment of tax due in this form, then an administrative execution would take place[68]. In no case could the tax authority agree to this form of payment of the tax liability.

Only the tax liability of the State Treasury which remained in the jurisdiction of the tax office in kind could be the subject of this agreement[69]. The signing of the contract should be preceded by an agreement, taking over both movable and immovable property.

However, if the property was acquired, it could be transferred only through the regional government body of the general administration[70].

7. Effective ways to end tax obligations in Tax Ordinance of 29 August 1997

Changes that have been made to lp 1997, especially In the first its duration in years 2001 and 2003 were corrective amendments. They were designed to remove the perceived loopholes and to enforce the Constitutional Court's judgments. On the other hand, two major changes took place in the year 2005 and 2009.

They have had a significant impact on the relationship between the taxpayer and tax authorities. On the one hand, reduced the tax risk by introducing an institution of interpretation, and second took account of technological progress and made it possible to use new tools using digital technology.

The amendments to which it is worth noting are the procedure of tariff price agreements, the suspension of the implementation of the decision during the dispute, the right to make an adjustment. These new solutions have reduced the taxpayer's tax risk and reduced the number of disputes.

The tax payment is now essential in the process of implementing tax obligations. This is motivated by the need for the State and local government units to collect the appropriate cash resources for their needs[71]. In tax proceedings, unlike in general administrative proceedings, non-final tax decisions are implemented.

In the event of payment of the tax, the tax liability established by the tax authority is terminated as a result of the assessment or calculated by the taxpayer himself.

This is not the implementation of a ultimately shaped mandatory legal relationship, since its content, subject matter and even sometimes the subject-matter of that relationship may be altered as a result of appeal proceedings, self-calculation checks or judicial review of the correctness of the administrative decision[72].

It shall not prevent the lodging of an appeal or its recognition from paying the tax resulting from a final decision[73]. Payment of tax and appeal against a non-final decision does not invalidate the application of the principle of double-instance tax proceedings[74].

It does not yet lead to the expiry of the obligation due to payment of the payment on the basis of a non-final tax decision[75].

The amount of the tax liability comes only from a final decision which may result from the termination of the appeal procedure. Early payment of the tax will result in an appropriate deduction of the late payment or reimbursement of the overpayment[76].

According to the author, the purpose of this standard is to minimise adverse financial effects in the form of interest on tax arrears. It can also prove that the taxpayer is actually willing to comply with the tax obligation[77].

The line of caselaw now predominates that the payment made on the basis of an indeterminate tax decision leads to the termination of the tax obligation but does not deprive the taxpayer of the right to appeal against such a decision[78].

Tax payment is the taxpayer's primary obligation, but there is no normative definition of the concept of "tax payment". This is undoubtedly the source of differences in interpretation relating in particular to the so-called special forms of tax payment.

Tax payment is a collection of various factual and legal acts 79 , payment of the debt. The collection of tax arrears by administrative enforcement is also a form of tax payment resulting in the expiry of the tax obligation[80]. It can be regarded as a separate way of terminating the tax liability[81].

In the doctrine, there are opinions that the payment of the tax only leads to the expiry of rights and substantive obligations to the extent that they were exercised by the payment and does not specifically lead to the expiry of the tax obligation[82].

The obliged entity pays the tax 83 , and its performance by a person other than the taxable person cannot be legally effective 84 , does not justify the refund of the excess tax as an unduly paid benefit.

The payment of the amount of the tax by a person other than the taxable person may be regarded as effective payment only if the payer acts as the contractor of the taxable person, i.e.

the person who, acting on behalf of the taxpayer, pays out of his cash resources by providing a service to the taxable person in this respect and the taxable person and the party to the tax proceedings remains the person on whose behalf the payment was made[85].

In the absence of different arrangements, the tax may only be paid by the taxable person. According to a different view, a tax payment made by an entity other than a taxable person should be considered legally effective and giving effect to the tax obligation.[86].

Civil law agreement between the taxpayer and the person third does not lead to entry third in place of the tax payer[87].

It must not give rise to an expiry of the tax liability imposed on the taxable person by the provision of the tax to a municipality other than the competent municipality, since payment must be made to the competent beneficiary[88].

Depending on the cash or non-cash form of payment, the date of payment of the tax varies.

When paying cash, it is the day of payment of the amount of tax at the cashier’s office or at the bank account of that authority in the bank, post office, payment service office, payment institution 89 , and in a cooperative savings and credit box, or the day the payer or collector collects the tax.

In non-cash transactions, it is the day of debiting the bank account of the taxpayer or the payer or the collector, or his credit card account, his payment account at the payment institution on the basis of a transfer order. In the non-cash trade, the tax is only possible from the taxpayer's account.

Non-cash tax is not allowed third from a bank account belonging to a person third[90].

Payment orders may also be submitted by electronic document using software that makes available to banks or other payment service providers the right to accept payment orders or otherwise agreed with the bank or other payment service provider receiving the order.

At this point it is worth pointing out that from 1 January 2020 The institution of the so-called individual tax microaccount, which is the account assigned to the taxpayer, the employer, the payer, for the payment of personal income tax (PIT) and legal persons (CIT), as well as the VAT, was introduced. The current bank accounts of tax offices in the fields of PIT, CIT and VAT functioned to 31 December 2019 From 1 January 2020 PIT, CIT and VAT obligations must be paid on an individual micro-tax account.

In accordance with the current 1 January 2020 Article 61b The payment of personal income tax, corporate tax, goods and services tax and non-taxable budgetary charges shall be made to the account of the tax office using an individual tax account identifying the taxpayer or the payer (individual tax account).

The structure of the individual tax account number shall be in accordance with the Bank Account Number format and shall include: control sum, clearing number of the bank’s business unit and tax identifier.

The number of the individual tax account shall be made available, after the tax identifier has been given, in the Public Information Bulletin on the website of the body of the office serving the minister responsible for public finances or the tax office.

The changes introduced are also linked to the issue of settlement of deposits on individual microbanks. As amended Article 62 section 1 A taxable person who does not have any tax arrears at the time of the transfer may determine what type of obligation he wishes to regulate, i.e. PIT, CIT, VAT or other.

If, in the title of the transfer, the taxable person does not indicate the tax to be settled, the head of the tax office will settle the obligation of the oldest due date.

The advantages of introducing individual tax micro-accounts include the fact of holding one, a permanent account to be paid under PIT, CIT and VAT, which makes it easier for taxpayers to use one the bank account is simply more convenient.

Another advantage is the fact that the individual tax account number does not change in case of a change in the place of residence or residence of the company.

There are entity restrictions in the way taxes are paid. Tax payers, payers operating an economic activity and obliged to keep a book of accounts or a tax book of income and expense should pay taxes by means of a transfer order.

This order should be made not from the personal account of a taxable person who is not related to the activity and from the account of the trader - the account related to the conduct of business[91]. This limitation does not apply to the tax charge that entrepreneurs can pay in cash. Micro-entrepreneurs can pay all taxes in cash.

This applies to an economic activity in the form of private medical practice[92]. Transfer command need not be used in third in cases: where the payment of the tax is not related to the business activity carried on, the payment of the tax is made by securities or excise duties and where taxes are collected by payers or collectors.

The excess input tax is not a payment which results in the tax liability being terminated[93].

The tax liability expires due to the collection of the tax by the payer or collector[94]. The payer and collector are intermediaries between the taxpayer and the tax authority. They transfer money to the tax authority on behalf of the taxpayer[95].

The obligation of the payer is: to calculate the amount of the tax, to collect it from the taxpayer and to pay it to the tax authority in due time[96]. However, the role of the collector is to collect the tax on the taxpayer and pay it to the tax authority in due time.

Incasents collect some local taxes and local charges if the municipal council orders their collection in this form. Examples include the collection of real estate, agricultural and forest tax on individuals, including local, market, tax, health care and dog possession.

The municipal council should analyse the need for this institution to be applied from the point of view of purpose and economy before deciding on the collection of taxes and charges by means of an inks.

It may also take into account criteria such as: local traditions which are relevant in rural environments, the interests of taxpayers, and in particular facilitate their payment of taxes and charges.

The collection of the tax by the collector cannot be regarded as a form of co-financing of entities entrusted with carrying out these activities[97]. In the opinion of the Author, the interest of the municipality, taxpayers, rather than collectors, should be the main focus of the tax collection.

The actual satisfaction of the creditor will take place when the payer or collector pays the tax on the account of the competent tax authority. The absence of this payment on time does not exist and cannot affect the expiry of the tax obligation.

However, it gives rise to the taxpayer’s tax liability, the collector’s liability, as the tax liability expires at the time of collection. Otherwise, the obligations of the payer and the collector were settled when these entities became debtors of the State Treasury or local government units.

This is due to payment, overpayment, tax refund, remission 98 , the acquisition of immovable property or the acquisition of property rights in enforcement proceedings as well as as as a result of statute of limitations.

There is the most extensive set-up of deductions so far. The moment at which the hit-and-run occurs has been clearly defined 99 , and the application of the deduction institution to taxes constituting the income of the municipal budget has also been restored[100].

It is not possible to deduct a taxable person's claim against his tax obligations if the claim does not fulfil the conditions under which the legislator has made the possibility of deducting. A claim resulting from a contract concluded under a suspensory condition which has not been fulfilled cannot be deducted[101].

The deduction of tax liabilities as a legal institution was taken over from civil law. Deduction in civil law is defined as the way in which liabilities are executed when two the parties are both debtors and creditors.

The obligations of these entities do not in principle arise from a mutual agreement and their benefits are of a single-type nature[102].

Tax Ordinance introduces a closed catalogue of receivables of the taxpayer to the Treasury from which the deduction may occur[103]. Deduction of the taxable person's claim from other titles than those mentioned in the Act does not result in the tax liability being terminated.

From 1 January 2009 set-off of obligations may be the result of a final court judgment which has been given on the basis of Article 4172 k.c., a court settlement concluded in connection with the circumstances envisaged under Article 4172 k.c.

Tax arrears, together with interest on late payment or due, constituting the revenue of the State budget, shall, at the request of the taxpayer, be deducted from the mutual, uncontested and payable liability of the taxpayer to the State Treasury for a strictly defined claim[104].

The right to deduct a tax liability from a mutual, uncontested, due claim shall be granted only to the taxable person from his/her mutual claim.[105]. Overpayments shall be credited by the tax authority to taxes ex officio or on request only after they have been incurred. However, they shall never be deducted by the taxable person[106].

Reciprocal liability means that one of the parties to the taxpayer is a debtor for the tax attributable to the State Treasury or the state budget unit, and the State Treasury or the State Budget Unit is the debtor with statutory titles[107]. The tax subsidy granted to the taxpayer is not a liability of the taxpayer to the State Treasury, from which it would be possible to deduct the tax liability[108].

The claim resulting from final court judgments and settlements between the creditor and the debtor, final administrative decisions, recognised by the debtor, resulting from non-reserved civil law contracts, or from a consistent declaration by the parties to the legal relationship, is unopposed.

Only a claim can be uncontested if, as a result of the evidence gathered, it is clear that such a claim exists, the amount and date of its execution are determined.[109].

The Supreme Administrative Court stated that it was unreasonable for the taxpayer to submit confirmation by the office representing the Treasury of the existence of a mutual, uncontested and enforceable claim to the Treasury when the taxpayer applied for a deduction of the tax liability with such a claim[110].

A claim due is one that has already expired. The Supreme Administrative Court noted that ,,the difficulties in obtaining funds by a state organisational unit cannot deprive the taxpayer of the right to carry out tax obligations’. 111 .

Tax Ordinance introduces a closed directory of claims of the taxpayer 112 to the Treasury from which the deduction may occur. These are claims only for: a final judgment given on the basis of Article 417 or Article 4172 k.c., a final court settlement in connection with the circumstances envisaged under Article 417 or Article 4172 k.c., the acquisition by the Treasury of real estate for purposes justifying its expropriation or expropriation of immovable property on the basis of the provisions on the management of immovable property, compensation for wrongful conviction, temporary arrest or detention, obtained on the basis of the provisions of the Public Administration, compensation obtained on the basis of the rules on the recognition of decisions given against persons being repressed for their activities in favour of the Polish State, compensation given in the decision of the government administration[113].

In the author's opinion, it is much more important for the practice for taxpayers with claims to be deducted from state budget units for contracts executed under public procurement rules. The condition is that the deduction is made by that taxable person and on that claim.

Additional rigours have been introduced to ensure that the taxpayer is the original creditor of the state budget unit and that the taxpayer's claim is due to contracts executed by him on the basis of contracts concluded under public procurement rules[114].

New Article 64(2), given novel with 2008, The legislator refers to the general concept of performance of contracts instead of works, supplies or services carried out, and refers more precisely to the contract concluded under public procurement rules. Budgetary units are organisational units of the public finance sector which do not have legal personality, which cover their expenditure directly from the budget, and the revenue collected brings to the account, respectively, the revenue of the state budget or the budget of the local government unit[115].

Deduction proceedings may be initiated ex officio or upon request. The deduction shall take the form of a provision to be complained about. It is of a declaratory nature when it takes into account the application for a deduction. The deduction shall take place on the date on which the application is lodged.

The decision to deduct shall be of a constitutional nature. It comes on the date of the order. In the form of a decision, a deduction shall be refused in proceedings initiated on application.

Where the deduction does not cover the amount of the tax arrears, the amount resulting from the deduction shall be proportional to the tax arrears and interest on the default in relation to the amount of the tax arrears remaining at the date of the deduction to the interest on the late payment[116].

It is not possible to deduct when the taxpayer is entitled to claims against a self-government budgetary unit and is charged with tax liability for taxes constituting the revenue of the State budget[117].

A budgetary unit whose obligation has been deducted from the taxpayer's claim is obliged to pay the equivalent of the expiring tax to the tax authority within the time limit seven days from the date of the deduction. Interest on late payment[118].

Tax liability expires as a result of overpayment or tax refund[119]. Overpayments and their interest rates shall be accounted ex officio for tax arrears, together with interest on late payment and current tax obligations[120]. The tax refund procedure shall apply accordingly.

The effects of the expiry of the tax obligation are not dependent on whether the credit is made against the obligation laid down in the final or final tax decision[121].

If there is tax arrears or current obligations, the excess payment shall be accounted for ex officio for those arrears or due tax without the consent or disposal of the taxable person.[122]. The tax authority, in the event of overpayment, where the taxpayer has tax arrears, shall count it against them.[123].

The tax authority should account for the overpayment of the tax arrears known to it, but it is not required to seek other existing arrears.[124]. The settlement of overpayment may only take place after the date on which it was established is clearly determined.[125].

In cases of overpayment to late and current tax obligations, the tax authority must issue a decision[126]. There's a complaint to be made. The order states that ex lege has been made to credit a certain amount of overpayment or reimbursement of tax differences against arrears or current liabilities.

The provision is a formal confirmation of the accounting activities of the tax authority[127].

The provisions on the deduction of overpayments on tax liabilities and tax arrears shall apply mutatis mutandis to the reimbursement of taxes which, in the procedure for the expiry of tax obligations, is treated in the same way as overpayments[128].

A particular form of termination of a tax liability is the transfer of property ownership or property rights[129]. The equivalent of that institution in the tax liability law was the institution of acquisition into the property of the State Treasury[130].

This may be the case for the State Treasury in exchange for tax arrears for taxes constituting revenue of the state budget or for the municipality, county, voivodship 131 , but in return for tax arrears resulting from the revenue of their budgets[132].

The parties to the agreement are the taxpayer and the State Treasury or local government. The old man is competent to conclude the contract in the event of tax arrears constituting the revenue of the Treasury. This shall be subject to the agreement of the competent head of the tax office or the competent head of the customs office.

Accordingly, the mayor, the mayor (the city president), the county board, the voivodship is the authority responsible for concluding the contract in the case of arrears constituting the income of the local government unit.

Transfer of ownership may only take place at the request of a taxable person who should contain elements of a procedural document[133].

It is necessary to determine the amount of tax arrears and interest on late payment, the clarification of the goods or rights covered by the proposed transfer and, if necessary, the valuation of their[134]. There are no restrictions on the nature and nature of the benefit.

A restriction may be imposed solely on the parties to the agreement. In view of the civil law nature of the contract, the taxpayer may not have any claim to the other parties concerned. The Agreement shall be drawn up in a special form when necessary for its conclusion.

The subject of the taxpayer's benefit may be movable, immovable and immovable property, as well as liability and rights on intangible property, if negotiable[135]. This agreement is certainly not a sales agreement, there is no reciprocity here, nor is it a donation agreement, as there is a different causa.

It certainly has the character of an unnamed agreement. This agreement has a private and public legal context. The statutory procedure for the conclusion of such a contract by the Treasury is as follows. The agreement shall be drawn up in writing.

The old man shall notify the competent head of the tax office or the head of the customs office of its conclusion by sending a copy of the contract. The tax authority agrees or refuses to express it in the form of a provision which is not subject to a complaint. The text of the provision must be unambiguous.

As part of the administrative recognition, which is preceded by the proceedings, the tax authority is to be decided. Where a contract is concluded, the tax authority first a decision to terminate the tax liability shall be taken by the court[136].

A decision may be issued only after the date of transfer of ownership or property rights, since that day is considered to be the expiry date of the tax obligation[137]. The decision is of a declaratory nature.

Transfer of property to the State Treasury in exchange for tax arrears constituting the revenue of the State budget is not a taxable activity[138].

Legislative one of the methods of termination of the tax obligation mentioned the acquisition of property or property rights in enforcement proceedings[139]. The acquisition of property or property rights in enforcement proceedings is different from the transfer of property and property rights to the expiry of tax obligations.

However, this way of terminating obligations involves the compulsory execution of tax obligations[140].

The subject of administrative execution within the meaning of the term , ,real estate acquisition’ may be land, land with buildings, buildings, fractional part of the property, cooperative right to a utility, residential property constituting a separate property, perpetual use, cooperative property right to a residential unit, the right to a single-family house in a housing cooperative, the right to a residential unit in a house built by a housing cooperative to transfer its property to a cooperative member[141].

The dimension of the obligation prejudges the amount of the tax liability to be enforced, only the obligation to be measured may be subject to administrative execution and only to the amount to be measured. This undoubtedly also applies to obligations arising from tax law[142].

The enforcement provisions do not provide that the extent of that obligation is to be achieved during its duration.[143].

Asset rights within the meaning of the Act on Enforcement in Administration are claims, securities rights recorded on a securities account, money account claims, securities not recorded on a securities account, copyright property rights and related rights, notes, industrial property rights, participation in a limited liability company, and other property rights[144].

The administrative execution of the property may be carried out if other enforcement measures have not been possible or proved unsuccessful[145]. There may be no doubt regarding the undertaking in question. The purpose of the enforcement shall be to enforce the monetary claims specified or determined only in the final judgment[146].

The enforcement authority shall proceed to administrative execution from the property by seizing the property, requiring the obliged person to pay the fine with interest and enforcement costs within the time limit 14 the days from the date of service of the notice, subject to the urgency of entering the description and estimation of the value of the property.

The call for payment should not be addressed to a proxy, but directly to the person required[147]. The occupation includes the property and all of this can be the subject of mortgage charges along with the benefits of the property.

The seized property shall be sold by the enforcement authority not earlier than after the expiry of the 30 the days from the date of delivery of the description and estimate of the value by auction, which shall take place publicly. The date of bidding shall be notified by the enforcement authority by public notice.

The notice must be posted at the premises of the tax office, the office of the competent local government unit, at least on 30 days before the auction date. Opening price for real estate In the first Oral auction three fourth the estimated value of the property.

The enforcement procedure is decommissioned after third subsequent auctions none of the creditors took ownership of the property. The enforcement body, after closing the bidding, shall issue a decision to nail the bidder who offered the highest price.

If the attachment has become final and the purchaser has paid the purchase price, the enforcement authority in the granting of the ownership which has become final shall transfer the ownership to the purchaser.

The execution may also be carried out from monetary claims, securities not recorded in securities accounts, notes, rights from financial instruments recorded in securities or other accounts, and from claims from cash accounts, participation in the company of o.o.

Where a shareholder has more shares, the seizure concerns everyone and the enforcement authority takes over the share of all shares one enforcement[148]. Enforcement may also be carried out with copyright and related rights, industrial property rights and other property rights[149].

The advantage of the now adopted concept implementing the legal unification of the enforcement of public-law obligations is primarily to reduce the volume of the law, making it transparent and therefore easy to apply[150]. Failures include failure to take account of the specificity of tax enforcement[151].

8. Summary

The above analysis shows that the evolution of forms of tax expiration is extremely complex and problematic. In many places, the presentation of amendments, based only on the linguistic interpretation of the provisions in the legislation, is far from sufficient.

Tax Ordinance contains a closed catalogue of acceptable ways of terminating tax obligations. This solution serves to stabilise and secure relations between the taxpayer and the tax creditor. Before 1 January 2003 it was not a closed collection because it did not mention the tax refund as one of the ways of terminating the tax obligation.

As a result of the full definition of the ways in which tax obligations are terminated, there is no longer any doubt as to whether the tax liability expires in any way other than those mentioned in the Act. All forms of expiring tax liability are of an arbitrary and mutually exclusive nature.

This is a transparent solution for the tax authority, as well as for a taxable person who cannot expect the obligation to expire in any other way.

The Tax Obligations Act was characterised by the laconicity of regulations, coming from other political and economic realities, and did not emphasize the protection of taxpayers' interests.

In relation to the catalogue contained in the Tax Obligations Act, the catalogue of forms of expiring tax liability in the Ordinance from 1997 it was definitely expanded.

New forms have emerged which take greater account of the mutual interests of the tax creditor and the taxpayer and allow the tax obligation to be terminated in line with the facts of the situation. The taxpayer, as a person obliged to pay the tax, has a full range of possibilities to pay it, as well as to pay tax arrears.

This is a very good solution for him because he can decide on the form of payment in the most beneficial way to himself. Entry into force Tax Ordinance of 1997 was linked to the unification of the creditor rights of the Treasury and the municipality.

Previously, the tax obligations to the municipality's budget expired effectively only by paying the tax, while the deduction and acquisition of the taxpayer's assets were also used in tax settlements with the State Treasury.

The State Treasury and local government units are now entitled to apply the same measures leading to the termination of the tax obligation.

_________________________________________________