Evolution of ineffective methods of extinguishing tax liabilities

Changes in the different ways of expiring tax obligations can be traced by examining the solutions introduced in the Act with 15 March 1934 - Tax Ordinance 1 , Decrete from 16 May 1946 on tax liabilities 2 , Decrete from 26 October 1950 on tax liabilities 3 , Act of 19 December 1980 on tax liabilities 4 and the current law with 29 August 1997 Tax Ordinance 5 (hereafter, O.P.).

In our Bulletin, we have presented the evolution of effective ways to end tax obligations 6 ; in this study, the author focuses on discussing ineffective forms of this expiration, taking into account the position of doctrine and administrative courts.

These forms, in particular the limitation of tax obligations, serve as an orderly and stimulating function and constitute an instrument of legal certainty, as the powers and obligations not exercised within certain deadlines should be repealed.

1. Introduction

A closed catalogue of ways of terminating tax obligations is included in the reference document. 7 :

• 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 8 (an exemption from the obligation to pay in the event of an interpretation which is subsequently amended or not taken into account in the settlement of the tax case, to the extent resulting from the event to be interpreted;
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.

As indicated in previous analysis 9 Issues concerning the forms of termination of tax obligations, all of which are self-contained and mutually exclusive 10 , Whereas the procedural result of the termination of the tax obligation is the need to cancel the ongoing tax procedure. Since the application of the provisions of the General Tax Code, the debt rights of the municipality and the Treasury have been harmonised.

2. Inefficient ways to expire tax obligations in Tax Ordinance of 15 March 1934

According to Tax Ordinance of 15 March 1934 a tax liability, which usually resulted from a payment order, may have expired by payment, compulsory collection, remission or limitation[11].

In cases justified or worthy of special consideration, the tax authorities had the right to surrender, in the form of a decision, to certain entities in whole or in part, taxes, fines, interest on arrears and enforcement costs.

In cases of natural disasters, the Minister of the Treasury had the right to issue orders to redeem certain tax claims from a particular territory. These were acts of a general nature.

The Regulation provided for a limitation institution for the right to collect tax liabilities as a result of the expiry five years from the end of the calendar year in which the payment deadline expired[12].

The limitation period with which the tax liability expired was interrupted each time by any activity of the tax authority, by postponement of the payment period or by the distribution of payments into instalments[13]. The limitation was fundamentally different from the limitation to the tax charge[14].

In the second no payment order could be issued as a result of the passage of time, whereas In the first the tax liability arose but expired as a result of the passage of time[15].

There were general reliefs in the payment of arrears, which consisted of postponement of payments, instalments, total or partial remission, interest reduction, write-off of enforcement costs and fines, and the possibility to pay tax arrears in kind[16]. Reliefs were granted either ex officio or at the request of the taxpayer. The allowances and interest were decommitted in proportion to the tax write-off.

The remission of enforcement costs required a separate act. Individual reliefs could also be granted in exceptional cases after application to the tax office, the tax office or the Ministry of Treasury[17]. They were mainly subject to the authorisation of instalment repayment of arrears, postponement of the payment deadline, total or partial remission and reduction of interest[18].

1. Inefficient ways to terminate tax obligations in the Act of 19 December 1980 on tax liabilities

The tax liability law provided for two the methods of ineffective termination of the tax liability which did not lead to the physical satisfaction of the tax liability. They concerned the limitation of the tax obligation and the remission of tax arrears.

The limitation allowed the debtor to deviate from the performance of the service as a result of the time period laid down in the law.

It was therefore intended to protect legal certainty and the elimination of claims which, as a result of a long period since their inception, would have been separated from the factual situation in which the taxpayer was present.[19]. Tax liabilities expired five years – from the end of the year in which the tax payment deadline expired.

The limitation applied to the main benefit, as well as side benefits, e.g. interest. The effect arose after the expiry of the limitation period by law itself, no decision was needed on the matter[20].

The limitation period started on the day after the date on which the benefit became due. The limitation period interrupted the postponement of the payment period or the distribution of the tax arrears into instalments[21]. The cessation of the limitation period caused it to run again.

However, the statute of limitations was not subject to property-backed tax. After a five-year period, they could only be enforced from the property. As a general rule, tax arrears have expired. However, there were delays which were not subject to statute of limitations – such exceptions were tax arrears secured on real estate.

After the expiry of a five-year limitation period, the liability of the taxpayer becomes a liability in kind limited to the property on which the security is held[22].

The State Treasury or the municipality may enforce claims only from the property, not from all the assets of the debtor. Since the only form of real estate security was mortgage, the tax arrears of the State Treasury could be secured by a legal mortgage. The tax arrears of the State Treasury and the municipality could be secured by a compulsory mortgage.

second of the inefficient ways in which the tax liability in the tax liability law was terminated. The waiver could only concern tax arrears and interest on default.

The waiver did not therefore concern the tax liability itself. If the tax authority has decommitted the tax arrears in part, the remission shall also be subject to the law itself to interest for default in the part in which the default itself has been decommitted[23]. A decision could have been taken by the Authority in which the tax authority waived interest in more part than the tax arrears had been waived.

Where the decision of the Authority did not contain any decisions concerning interest on late payment, the principle of proportional write-off, which came from the law itself, shall apply.

The tax authority could not make a decision in which it had only waived the tax arrears and refused to write off interest for late payment; such a decision was invalid in the interest part. The authorities empowered to redeem were: the Minister of Finance and the tax authorities.

In any event, the Minister of Finance could have made a decision to waive the tax arrears, whether or not the tax authorities were conducting the proceedings and what was the outcome of the proceedings in this case[24].

The Act provided for the possibility of waiving tax arrears in socially or economically justified cases. These grounds were formulated out of focus. However, this did not mean full discretion when the tax authority decided a particular case.

The decisions were subject to an instituency review and were assessed by the Supreme Administrative Court. Unacquainted concepts of social and economic accidents[25] have a wide range of meaning and should be interpreted according to the circumstances of the particular case[26].

The circumstances in which the redemption took place are, in particular, a significant reduction in the taxpayer's ability to pay due to a disaster or other random accident, a materially undermining of the conditions of existence of the family obliged, the collapse of the company or establishment of the taxpayer as a result of repayment or enforcement of tax arrears[27].

Tax arrears could have been decommissioned in whole or in part. The tax authority may have also remitted all or part of the interest[28]. The remission of tax arrears or interest on late payment occurred in the form of a tax decision most often issued at the taxpayer's request. Only the taxable person could apply for redemption[29].

The question of the group of eligible entities to which tax arrears may have been waived has not been resolved, nor has it been clearly indicated that the party's request is a condition for a tax arrears to be waived.

One might be tempted to conclude that, if the competent authority considered that the statutory conditions were met, it could, on its own initiative, waive tax arrears or interest on late payment. No tax arrears could be claimed which expired before the request for remission[30].

It should be noted that the finding by the tax authority that there are or are no social or economic reasons justifying the possible remission of tax arrears or interest on late payment was a necessary condition for considering the possibility of redemption, but could not oblige the tax authority to issue a decision waiving tax arrears[31].

The remission of tax arrears was justified on economic or social grounds only in cases which were caused by factors which could not be affected by the taxpayer and which were independent of the way it was created.[32].

The declaration of bankruptcy of the company did not give rise to the remission of tax arrears. The financial failures of economic activities could not result in a tax write-off obligation as they were the basis for the state's and partly local income. Taking a different position would result in the effects of unwise or inept actions of economic operators being borne by society as a whole[33].

The taxpayer's request for remission of backlogs where, at the time the tax authority ruled, the undertaking had not yet become tax arrears had to be considered as a request for failure to establish or to collect the tax[34].

On the other hand, when the taxable person made a request not to establish or collect the tax, and at the time of the ruling the tax liability did not become a tax arrears, the application had to be considered as a tax arrears request.

The remission of tax arrears or interest on late payment did not lead to the repeal of a decision setting the amount of tax liabilities or interest; the application for remission was subject to examination in a separate procedure initiated in a new case which did not concern the issue of the determination of claims[35].

Where a party has requested a relief which it has not been granted, or even a relief not provided for in the law, the authority should issue a decision refusing the requested relief, rather than a decision waiving the proceedings against its absence.[36].

The regulation of the official interpretation of tax law in Poland was subject to quite frequent changes, which were of a diverse nature, sometimes even revolutionary[37].

The Tax Obligations Act was characterised by the laconicity of regulations, came from a period of completely different political and economic realities, did not emphasize the protection of taxpayers' interests.

It did not contain regulations directly referring to the possibility to interpret tax law, and all the more so did not refer to the effect of the amendment of such interpretation. However, such interpretations were issued, and the activities of the Minister of Finance were commonly referred to as "replicative law".

The Minister of Finance exercised general supervision of tax obligations[38]. Under this supervision, it ensured uniform application of tax rules by tax authorities[39]. Interpretations were published in different ways, but most were sent to tax authorities.

Some of the interpretations were published in tax-related journals, collections of interpretations, but did not appear at the initiative of the finance minister, only as a result of the actions of individual publications.

Some guidelines were published in the Official Journal of the Minister of Finance[40]. This was the case for legislative acts, such as guidance on how and how to determine revenue by estimation[41] and with regard to the use of a model vehicle record[42].

The practice of repealing and harmonising the interpretation of the Minister of Finance has not developed uniformly and has been understood by taxpayers. In some new interpretations, the Minister of Finance reported that the view contained in another previously issued interpretation was flawed.

The Supreme Administrative Court stated that the letters of the Minister of Finance did not constitute the source of the law in force and could not be the legal basis for the tax decision.

If, on the other hand, such a letter interprets the provisions of law and the taxable person has applied it, he cannot therefore have negative effects unless he has been informed of the withdrawal from the previous interpretation[43].

The content of the interpretation of the Minister of Finance was not relevant to the outcome of the case, but the content of the law[44].

1. Inefficient ways to expire tax obligations in Tax Ordinance of 29 August 1997

The limitation of obligations is an orderly and stimulating function and an instrument of legal certainty, which is not exercised within certain time limits, the powers and obligations should be repealed, which regulates relations between tax authorities and taxpayers[45].

The expiry of the limitation period for the implementation of the tax obligation results in an ineffective expiry of the tax obligation, as the tax creditor has no advantage in the form of the impact of a certain amount of tax.

Tax liability expires five years from the end of the calendar year in which the tax payment deadline expired[46].

The obligation to pay the amount resulting from the decision of the tax authority determining the amount of the tax refund or the amount of the reimbursement of the difference in the correct amount, lower than the amount resulting from the declaration, shall be subject to limitation.[47].

After the expiry of the limitation period for the implementation of the tax obligation, a decision of the Board of Appeal may not be taken determining the tax arrears for inflating the amount of tax refund.[48].

In the event of limitation of collection of tax, the obligation relationship between the taxpayer and the tax creditor ceases to exist without any decision being taken[49]. Subject matter missing[50] and according to the Supreme Administrative Court this is independent of the phase[51] tax proceedings. The tax authority revokes the proceedings by order[52].

If the limitation period has expired, the tax authority may no longer check[53] that obligation and the expiry of the limitation period must be taken into account ex officio in the course of the tax proceedings, whether it is conducted by the Authority first or second instances[54].

In enforcement proceedings, limitation may also constitute a charge in the conduct of such proceedings and form the basis for discontinuance of proceedings enforcement[55]. Authority second the instance cannot speak of the amount of the obligation which has expired 56 , or modify its heights[57]. The effects of the expiry of the limitation period are evident in both procedural and material law[58]. In the event of limitation occurs discontinuance of proceedings because of its absence[59].

Without doubt, the limitation may apply to an existing obligation 60 , restricts at the time of the dimensional decision, does not have any material effect, prevents the creation of a tax obligation and does not allow the dimensional decision to be served[61].

The three-year period of that limitation shall not apply to declaratory decisions. Only a five-year limitation period shall apply for the tax authority to carry out the assessment of the obligation, which shall be counted from the end of the calendar year in which the tax payment deadline expired.[62].

A declaratory decision setting out the[63]. As the five-year deadline expires, all basic and by-law tax debts are limited. Interest on lateness is an accessory function, not a self-contained character[64]. It can't go out again. second as a result of the limitation period, the tax liability which expired due to payment[65].

The limitation period shall not run after payment of the tax[66].

The limitation period shall not begin and the commencement shall be suspended from the date of the decision to postpone the payment of the tax or to spread its payment in instalments until the deferred payment date.

Where payment of the tax is spread over instalments, the limitation period shall be extended by the period during which the duty should be paid by instalment[67].

The limitation period shall not start and the commencement shall also be suspended from the date of entry into force of the regulation on the extension of the period for payment of the tax issued by the Minister of Finance until the expiry of that extended period.

The limitation period for the tax liability does not begin and the start of the procedure is suspended from the date of initiation of the procedure. fiscal criminal offence, fiscal misdemeanour, if the suspicion of them being committed involves not fulfilling this specific obligation[68]. This applies to situations where there is a subject-matter or a relationship between criminal proceedings and a tax liability.[69].

The period of limitation shall run from the day following the date of final termination of this procedure. The limitation period shall also not begin on the date on which the action is brought before the administrative court on the decision relating to that obligation and the period of limitation shall be suspended.

The limitation period shall run from the day following the date on which the tax authority is served with a copy of the decision of the administrative court stating its validity[70]. The transfer of the file by the court at a later date to the tax authority is of no relevance to the limitation period[71].

The submission of a request for the general court to establish whether or not there is a legal relationship or a law causes that the limitation period for a tax liability does not begin and the start is suspended.

That time limit shall not run until the day following the date on which the judgment of the general court in the case was finalised. The period shall not start; the period shall be suspended from the date of service of the voluntary security provision. 72 or the provision of security orders under administrative enforcement rules.

As from the day following the expiry of the decision to secure or terminate the safeguard procedure under administrative enforcement, the limitation shall continue.[73].

Cases of suspension of the limitation period of the tax liability have been exhaustive listed in the Act. It should be stressed that there is no service to the party to the decision by the Authority. first instances[74], steps to initiate a tax liability, to issue a declaratory decision[75], or the time during which the taxable person has exercised the condition entitled to receive a relief regulated by tax laws[76].

The interruption of the limitation period for the implementation of the tax obligation, in contrast to the suspension, makes the entire period which expired until the interruption not to be considered to have occurred[77]. The statute of limitations begins again after the interruption[78].

The limitation period shall be interrupted by the declaration of bankruptcy and the enforcement measure notified to the taxpayer. Insolvency proceedings may be terminated only in respect of claims which on that date were not limitation[79]. Any enforcement measure notified to the taxpayer shall interrupt the limitation period.[80].

This measure and notification should take place before the expiry of the five-year limitation period. Both conditions must be met to allow the suspension to be interrupted .

It does not interrupt the limitation period of conditional conversion of the protective class to enforcement 82 , service of a copy of the instrument of enforcement, without entering into enforcement activities, only writing down with the obliged protocol on its assets 83 , first enforcement action carried out in accordance with the implementing title issued on the basis of a decision which has been annulled following that enforcement action[84].

Tax liabilities secured by mortgage or tax liability 85 they are not subject to statute of limitations. However, after expiry of the limitation period, liabilities may be enforced only on the subject of a mortgage or lien 86 , There is a transformation of liability of the debtor from personal to factual[87].

Before the expiry of the limitation period, a request for the entry of a compulsory mortgage in the land register should be submitted. After the expiry of the limitation period, the decision of the court to enter the mortgage shall not affect the effective security in kind[88].

The tax authority may, at the request of the taxable person, in cases justified by a significant interest of the taxable person or by a public interest, waive, in whole or in part, the tax arrears, interest on late payment or the extension fee[89].

The remission of tax arrears also results in the remission of interest on late payments in whole or in part in which the tax arrears were decommitted. The rules in question shall apply mutatis mutandis to claims on heirs of the taxpayer or payer and persons third[90].

Where a tax creditor waives part or all of his tax claim, the remission of arrears shall be a specific type of relief in the payment of tax liabilities. The Provincial Administrative Court considered that this relief could be compared to the grant of a non-refundable public loan to the taxpayer[91].

Only exceptional circumstances can lead to a derogation from the principle of paying taxes, since it is by a single system and a time limit for paying taxes that demonstrates the principle of equality between taxpayers and tax justice[92].

Since the remission of tax arrears is an extraordinary institution, economic and social accidents should have the same characteristics and be independent of the behaviour of the taxpayer or due to factors that the taxpayer could not have influenced[93].

Examples of such factors include: the effects of a natural disaster 94 , the taxpayer’s disease[95]. However, a difficult financial situation may be an important interest for the taxpayer 96 and loss of earning opportunities or random loss of assets[97].

Extraordinaryity should not be identified solely with random occurrences on which the taxpayer has not been affected[98]. A decision refusing to apply a reduction in the form of a reduction in the remuneration of a taxpayer who has had an impact on the existence of a tax arrears may be made by the[99].

Those grounds of the taxpayer’s important interest or of the public interest are equivalent[100].

The concept of an important interest of the taxpayer is indeterminate. It should be given the meaning it has in common language. It is not advisable to restrict this concept to a financial burden which is linked to the necessity of the taxpayer to comply with its tax obligations.[101].

An indication by the legislator that the interest of the taxpayer must be ,,important’ means the importance of that interest, but not only in the subjective perception of the taxpayer, but also in the light of the facts which have arisen objectively (without the involvement of the taxpayer)[102].

There must be additional conditions distinguishing the position of the taxable person in relation to other taxable persons, for example, the application of incorrect information from the tax authorities.

Decommissioning tax arrears in the public interest can occur if there is a threat of job losses or of the burden of maintaining the taxpayer on the state budget[103].

In assessing the existence of this condition, it is necessary to examine whether payment of tax arrears will require the taxpayer to apply for financial assistance as it will not be able to meet its own material needs. The reasons for public interest should be assessed by the principle of the impact of decisions taken[104].

Findings relating to the fulfilment of the conditions for the remission of tax arrears should refer to circumstances which existed at the time of the decision[105]. Tax authorities are also required to respect, when taking into account the public interest directive, values which are important to society as a whole, e.g.

citizens' confidence in public authorities, the efficiency of the state apparatus, the correction of its incorrect decisions, justice and security[106].

The grounds justifying the remission of tax arrears are in the nature of understatements, their interpretation makes the tax authority retains a certain degree of discretion in deciding whether or not to apply redemption. This decision is of a discretionary nature[107].

The tax authority may, at its discretion, even if there is a ,,important interest of the taxpayer’ or ,,important public interest’, decide not to apply the relief[108]. The decision is of a discretion, but cannot be a decision of any kind. It should be preceded by an explanation of the relevant circumstances of the tax case[109].

The tax authority has a certain scope of freedom with regard to the interpretation of the concepts contained in the conditions, as well as during the examination and assessment of the facts of the case. However, decisions on this issue cannot be identified with administrative recognition, although this is a discretion decision.

The determination of the conditions for granting this relief is subject to the rigour of the tax procedure. The judicial review of such a decision shall cover the procedure before its adoption. 110 , but not the mere decision which is the result of the choice itself.

The obliged person may apply for remission of arrears as long as there is a tax arrears[111].

Decommissioning of corporate tax arrears may occur 112 only after consideration of the important interest of the taxpayer and of the public interest[113]. The write-off of tax arrears, which constitute state aid to the entrepreneur, should comply with the rules on admissibility and supervision of state aid to the entrepreneur.

In such a case, the general clause, which refers to non-legal concepts such as the interests of the taxpayer and the public interest, is concrete and largely loses its original indeterminate nature[114]. The decommitment decision must comply with state aid rules for entrepreneurs. Consequently, the tax authority’s ruling on the remission of tax due to traders is no longer of a discretion[115].

At the request of a taxable person conducting an economic activity, the tax authority may grant relief for the payment of tax obligations:

• 1) which do not constitute State aid,
• 2) which constitute de minimis aid, in so far as and under the conditions laid down in the directly applicable Community legislation concerning de minimis aid,
• 3) which constitute State aid
• – granted, for example, to: repair damage caused by natural disasters or other exceptional occurrences, promote and promote culture, national heritage, science and education[116].

The tax authority may, on its own initiative, waive all or part of the tax arrears, interest on late payment or the carry-over charge where it is reasonable to believe that no amount in excess of the enforcement expenditure will be obtained in the enforcement proceedings, the amount of the backlog shall not exceed five times the cost of the reminder in the enforcement proceedings (does not include this limit on the interest on late payment, shall be referred to the principal arrears). 117 ), the amount of tax arrears has not been met in the final winding-up or bankruptcy proceedings, the taxpayer has died without leaving any assets or leaving improprieties unenforced and at the same time there are no heirs other than the Treasury or the local government unit, and there is no possibility of ruling the tax liability of the person third[118].

As a result of the lack of heirs or their rejection of the inheritance, if the inheritance falls to the State Treasury, the tax authority is entitled to pay tax arrears on its own account[119]. The tax authorities which determine or determine obligations in respect of taxes, levies and non-taxable budgetary charges, as well as the tax liability of the payer or collector, shall be competent in all or part of the tax arrears, interest on late payment or carry-over charge without limitation of the amount[120].

Failure to collect taxes has similar effects to tax relief and exemptions. However, these are tax law institutions relating to different situations and facts[121].

The application of the tax collection results in the fact that the existing tax liability, which arises by law as a result of the event with which the law binds it, is not implemented.

On the other hand, the exemption of the payer from the obligation to collect the tax only leads to the fact that the payer is exempted from the obligation to calculate, collect and withdraw the tax, and the only entity becomes the taxable person himself who is obliged to comply with the tax obligation[122].

The absence of tax collection is undoubtedly an extraordinary institution. Economic and social accidents should therefore have the same characteristics. Non-collection of the tax may be advocated by accidents which are independent of the behaviour of the taxpayer or due to factors on which the taxpayer could not have been affected.[123].

It is not possible for an institution not to collect a tax to make a tax exemption[124].

The tax authorities should take account of the social interest when deciding not to collect the tax, since the tax collection does not result in the implementation of the tax due to the budget, even if the taxpayer demonstrates that he has an important interest in obtaining such tax relief[125].

The opt-out concerns the existing tax obligation. If a tax liability arises, the tax will not be collected[126]. It is important that the omission of tax collection applies only to taxes to which the deadline for payment has not expired and not to tax arrears to which remission may be applied[127].

The Minister of Finance may, in cases justified by the public interest or the important interest of taxable persons, refrain in whole or in part from collecting taxes and exempt certain groups of payers from the obligation to collect taxes or advance taxes[128].

That authority may exercise its powers only in relation to a specific group of taxable persons. It issues an act of a normative nature, in the form of a regulation, and not in the form of a tax decision[129].

The Regulation on the non-collection of taxes on economic taxable persons who become beneficiaries of the aid as a result of the non-collection of taxes should include an aid scheme setting out the purpose and conditions for the admissibility of public aid.[130]. The issue of a Regulation should be exceptional, limited to justified cases.

It leads to a general non-taxation of a larger group of entities.

The tax authorities did not provide for the possibility of the tax authorities to apply tax evasion directly to an individual taxable person. However, it is worth noting that such a solution applies to agricultural tax[131].

In the event of a natural disaster which has caused material damage to buildings, livestock or dead, to a tree, land-plants shall be granted relief to the taxable persons by failing to establish or collect in whole or in part, in proportion to the extent of the losses caused by the disaster on the holding. 132.

The amount of compensation received for statutory insurance shall be taken into account when granting the relief. The relief is granted for the tax year in which the disaster occurred. If, on the other hand, the failure occurred after payment of the tax for a given year, the relief shall apply in the following tax year.

Failure to collect the tax is possible in individual cases, but only for the payer.

The tax authority may only exempt the payer from the obligation to collect the tax at the request of the taxpayer, including the collection of advances 133 – if the tax collection threatens the important interests of the taxpayer, in particular his existence or his claim, that the tax collected would be disproportionately high in relation to the tax due for the tax year or other accounting period.

Advances are disproportionately high when the amount of tax on the basis of foreseeable elements of the facts is estimated to be lower than the amount to be paid in advance[134].

Exemption of the payer from the obligation to collect the tax shall be based on a decision. The tax authority shall specify the time limit for the taxpayer to pay the tax or advance on the tax, unless the taxpayer is required to make an annual or other periodic settlement of that tax.

Tax authorities which are competent to determine or determine obligations in respect of fees, taxes and non-taxable budgetary charges under separate provisions shall also be competent in matters of exempting payers from the obligation to collect taxes or advances on taxes without limiting the amount, limiting the collection of advances on taxes without limiting the amount[135].

Failure to collect the tax should only serve temporarily to restore the taxpayer's financial balance, given its exceptional and exceptional nature. It should not be a permanent part of the functioning of the tax system for a particular taxpayer[136].

The application for non-collection of the tax does not constitute a continuation of the obligation procedure, as it may be carried out if there is no doubt that the taxable person has a specific tax obligation. The taxpayer, when requesting no tax collection, requests that the existing mandatory relationship on which it does not raise any objections be failed 137 , citing extraordinary circumstances.

During the period from 1 January 1998 to 31 December 2002 provided two types of tax rulings 138 , general and individual, which was issued by the Minister of Finance taking into account the case law of the courts and the Constitutional Court; their aim was to ensure uniform application of tax law by tax authorities and tax authorities[139].

It aims to ensure uniform application of tax law. The Minister of Finance was required to notify the competent court or body 140 , which may take measures to address discrepancies in established case-law.

In the doctrine it was quite often assumed that the Minister of Finance could not interfere in any way in decisions concerning specific and individual administrative matters, since the interpretations of the Minister of Finance should be of a general and abstract nature 141.

Official interpretations were not given at the taxpayer's request. The obligation to publish the interpretation of the Minister of Finance was introduced in the Treasury Bulletin of the Ministry of Finance.

second the form of interpretation are individual interpretations which were issued by the tax authority of the first instance. They are defined in the legislation as written information on the application of tax law. This interpretation may have been made at the request of the taxpayer, the payer and the collector.

They concern their individual case where no tax proceedings or tax checks have been initiated.

When regulating the interpretations, the issues were left out of the question of how the tax authority of the first instance or the Minister of Finance should behave when it comes to the conclusion that its own interpretation is flawed, how it can alter such interpretation or overturn the defective one.

The Minister of Finance allowed a change or cancellation of interpretation In one of his writings, as he stated that the taxpayer's compliance with the official interpretation must not harm the taxpayer and that the taxpayer's application to the interpretation of the tax legislation issued by the competent authorities is free of the financial consequences of any subsequent amendment or cancellation of the interpretation[142].

In resolving the effects of the change in interpretation, account had to be taken, first of all, of the absence of injury due to the taxpayer's application to the interpretation.

first the fundamental change in the rules on tax rulings contained in the General Tax Code occurred on 1 January 2003 143 The split into general and individual interpretations has been preserved. It was explicitly stated that the Minister of Finance could not interpret tax law in individual cases of taxpayers, payers or collectors.

The most important change was that general interpretations became binding on tax authorities and tax authorities.[144]. The content of the principle of non-injury has been clearly regulated.

Individual interpretations were still to be issued by the tax office, mayor, mayor or president of the city, but it was also possible to control the correct interpretation by the director of the tax chamber. Changes to the promotion body were also made as they are published in the Official Journal of the Minister of Finance.

Individual interpretations, however, are posted on the website of the competent tax office without the identification of the taxable person; this obligation also applies to local tax authorities.

A novel with 2006 introduced tenth form of termination of tax obligations, i.e. exemption from payment on the basis of Article 14 m.

The application of a general interpretation which has subsequently been amended or not taken into account in the settlement of a tax case shall result in an exemption from the obligation to pay the tax in so far as it results from an event to be interpreted[145].

In order for the undertaking to expire, they must be fulfilled two the conditions: the obligation was not properly implemented as a result of the application of an interpretation which has changed or not taken into account; the tax effects of an event which corresponds to the actual situation which is the subject of the interpretation occurred after the publication of the general interpretation or after the service of an individual interpretation.

The exemption from the obligation to pay in the case of an annual tax settlement covers the period from the end of the tax year in which the revised general interpretation was published, the amended individual interpretations were served or the tax authority was served with a copy of the ruling of the administrative court repealing the individual interpretation with a declaration of its validity.

The exemption from the obligation to pay in the case of quarterly tax settlement covers the period from the end of the quarter in which the revised general interpretation was published, the amended individual interpretation has been served, or the tax authority has been served a copy of the ruling of the administrative court repealing the individual interpretation with the declaration of its validity and the following quarter.

The tax authority shall inform the taxable person in writing of the date of service of the copy of the decision, indicating at the same time the date on which the period of exemption from the obligation to pay the tax resulting from the judgment of interpretation is ending. The exemption from the obligation to pay in the case of monthly tax settlement covers the period up to the end of the month in which the revised general interpretation was published, the amended individual interpretation has been served or the tax authority has been served with a copy of the ruling of the administrative court which repeals the individual interpretation with a declaration of its validity and the following month.

The taxable person who has complied with the interpretation may request that the tax authority in the decision determining or determining the amount of the tax liability also specify the amount of the exempt tax or the amount of the overpayment in the event of payment of the tax in the scope of the exemption. The taxpayer should apply for an exemption to benefit from that protection, and it is the duty of the tax authority to take a decision establishing or determining the amount of the obligation and to determine the interpretation exemption which arises by law[146].

It is not possible to make the existence of an exemption conditional on its designation in the decision, as the tax authority refers to the reimbursement of the amount of the exemption or overpayment, rather than to the wording of the tax authority’. 147 . The tax ruling of the tax ruling and determining the amount of the overpayment.

The institution of the exemption from payment resulting from the application of the official interpretation of the rules is, in some respects, similar to the previous individual institution’s decision not to collect the tax[148].

5. Summary

Inefficient forms of termination of tax obligations, including, in particular, the limitation of tax obligations, serve as an orderly and stimulating function and constitute an instrument of legal certainty, since the powers and obligations not exercised within certain time limits should be repealed.

At present, the tax authority can waive, in whole or in part, tax arrears, but only exceptional circumstances can lead to a derogation from the principle of paying taxes, as the principle of equality between taxpayers and tax justice is manifested by a uniform system and deadlines for paying taxes.

In conclusion, the analysis of the issue is extremely complex and multifaceted.

__________________________________________