Development of Tax Procedural Law and Sectoral Case Law in Selected Countries

Tjaša Vozel
{"title":"Development of Tax Procedural Law and Sectoral Case Law in Selected Countries","authors":"Tjaša Vozel","doi":"10.17573/CEPAR.V16I1.361","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of this paper is to examine the development of the Slovenian Tax Procedure Act and amendments thereto until 2017, in order to broaden the field knowledge on tax procedures within the administrative system as a whole. The Tax Procedure Act provides the general framework of the procedural tax system in Slovenia. The first version of the Tax Procedure Act (ZDavP) was adopted in 1996 and followed by five amending acts until the adoption of the second version (ZDavP-1) in 2004. The third and currently applicable version of the Tax Procedure Act (ZDavP-2) has been subject to over ten amendments so far. Furthermore, the study aims to compare the development of tax procedure in Slovenia and Sweden. Based on the normative and comparative analyses, review of domestic and foreign literature, and case law analysis, the advantages and disadvantages of the development of tax procedure in Slovenia were identified. The amendments analysed contributed mainly to simplifying the tax procedure, reducing red tape, decreasing costs, improving the efficiency of the tax authorities, and providing greater legal certainty for the taxpayers. Most changes to the Tax Procedure Act involved the personal income tax. An empirical study of the case law of the Administrative, Supreme and Constitutional Courts in selected period further showed that errors were mainly detected in relation to substantial violation of procedural requirements rather than incorrect application of substantive law. The study contributes to administrative and legal science and the tax profession as such. The results can be useful when drafting new tax procedural legislation to improve its effectiveness.","PeriodicalId":121229,"journal":{"name":"European Public Law: National eJournal","volume":"124 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Public Law: National eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17573/CEPAR.V16I1.361","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to examine the development of the Slovenian Tax Procedure Act and amendments thereto until 2017, in order to broaden the field knowledge on tax procedures within the administrative system as a whole. The Tax Procedure Act provides the general framework of the procedural tax system in Slovenia. The first version of the Tax Procedure Act (ZDavP) was adopted in 1996 and followed by five amending acts until the adoption of the second version (ZDavP-1) in 2004. The third and currently applicable version of the Tax Procedure Act (ZDavP-2) has been subject to over ten amendments so far. Furthermore, the study aims to compare the development of tax procedure in Slovenia and Sweden. Based on the normative and comparative analyses, review of domestic and foreign literature, and case law analysis, the advantages and disadvantages of the development of tax procedure in Slovenia were identified. The amendments analysed contributed mainly to simplifying the tax procedure, reducing red tape, decreasing costs, improving the efficiency of the tax authorities, and providing greater legal certainty for the taxpayers. Most changes to the Tax Procedure Act involved the personal income tax. An empirical study of the case law of the Administrative, Supreme and Constitutional Courts in selected period further showed that errors were mainly detected in relation to substantial violation of procedural requirements rather than incorrect application of substantive law. The study contributes to administrative and legal science and the tax profession as such. The results can be useful when drafting new tax procedural legislation to improve its effectiveness.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
税收程序法和部门判例法在选定国家的发展
本文的目的是研究斯洛文尼亚税收程序法的发展及其修正案,直到2017年,以扩大整个行政系统内税收程序的领域知识。《税收程序法》规定了斯洛文尼亚程序性税收制度的总体框架。第一版《税收程序法》(ZDavP)于1996年通过,随后又通过了五项修正案,直到2004年通过第二版(ZDavP-1)。目前适用的第三版《税务程序法》(ZDavP-2)迄今已经过十多次修订。此外,该研究旨在比较斯洛文尼亚和瑞典税收程序的发展。基于规范和比较分析,回顾国内外文献,以及判例法分析,确定了斯洛文尼亚税收程序发展的优势和劣势。所分析的修订主要有助于简化税务程序,减少繁文缛节,降低成本,提高税务机关的效率,并为纳税人提供更大的法律确定性。《税收程序法》的大部分修改都涉及个人所得税。对行政法院、最高法院和宪法法院在特定时期的判例法的实证研究进一步表明,错误主要是在实质性违反程序要求方面发现的,而不是错误地适用实体法。这项研究对行政和法律科学以及税务专业都有贡献。研究结果可用于起草新的税收程序立法,以提高其有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Smart Metering Interoperability Issues and Solutions: Taking Inspiration from Other Ecosystems and Sectors COVID-19 Vaccination and Data Protection Issues: A European Comparative Study With Focuses on France, Germany, Belgium, and Switzerland Costituzionalismo e diversità etnica: il caso della Bosnia-Erzegovina (Constitutionalism and Ethnic Diversity: The Case of Bosnia and Herzegovina) Judicial Assistants in Europe – A Comparative Analysis Connected Italy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1