In the latest version of the draft amendment to the Tax Code, a extramural tax mandate was introduced, which can be paid without a visit to the office – Deputy Minister of Finance Jarosław Neneman told PAP. Currently, the tax mandate is paid at the office.
PAP: The Ministry of Finance is working on the amendment to the Tax Code. In the previous version of the project, when securing tax receivables, the ministry proposed interruption of the limitation period for tax receivable by entering a mortgage securing the repayment of tax arrears, now proposes to suspend this run. Where did this change come from, since the interruption was to be more favorable for taxpayers?
Jarosław Neneman, Deputy Minister of Finance: First of all, we introduce the principle that the tax is barred, even the one secured with a mortgage. It was already in the project from March this year. The current provision of the Ordinance states the principle of unexploding in the scope of mortgage protection. Against this background, the interruption was beneficial, because after interrupting the limitation period begins again, but after another 5 years, the limitation period would occur.
Listening to the voices of the consultation, we decided that when securing the tax receivable with a mortgage, the suspension would be involved, but with a time limiter – as a result, the limitation period will be suspended for no longer than five years. So from the moment the security is established in the form of an entry in the mortgage, the Tax Administration is 5 years old to satisfy, i.e. for the sale of real estate. At this point, it requires an indication that in practice the sale of real estate is rare. Usually, as part of the enforcement of arrears, it is enough to seize bank accounts, movable property and various debts' claims.
PAP: In the current version of the project, there is the possibility of presenting the justification of the correction made by the taxpayer. Earlier you proposed the liquidation of the obligation to submit an application for an overpayment, where the justification was mandatory, now you are coming back to justification.
Jarosław Neneman: Yes, now a taxpayer who identified the overpayment in the correction of the tax return, must submit an application for an overpayment so that the office can conduct proceedings in this case and finally refund it. This is a formal requirement and we endure this requirement, as we originally proposed. But at the request of local governments, we decided to add the possibility for the taxpayer to be justified by the reasons for the correction, and consequently – overpayment. It turned out that while the lack of such justification for the tax authorities did not matter, local governments were afraid that they would be in the blindfold and would not know what the reason for the correction, because of this, the justification was very good.
In general, sometimes we do not remember that the Tax Code is for everyone, not only for tax authorities, but also for local governments and for the vast majority of administration, practically for the entire budgetary sphere. Especially in the scope of payment of the liability or its limitation, in terms of various types of fees, climatic or junk. We had many internal meetings with representatives of these institutions and we tried not to hinder their lives and where possible, we took into account their comments.
PAP: As in the case of resignation from the need for local government to provide information on the initiation of proceedings aimed at determining the property tax obligation? Will this not make life difficult for taxpayers?
Jarosław Neneman: This is the situation in which the taxpayer did not submit within the time limit necessary to issue a decision determining the tax liability in local taxes, however, the authority is in possession of data necessary to issue such a decision. In this case, the need to inform the taxpayer that proceedings are initiated to determine the amount of tax is simply an unnecessary formality, and the resignation from the delivery of the decision to initiate proceedings will accelerate the issuing of a tax decision in these matters.
PAP: Another change concerns the issue of lodging against the decision refusing to supplement or rectify the decision. In the previous version of the Ministry of Finance proposed that lodging such a complaint extends the limitation period.
Jarosław Neneman: We have identified a significant problem in tax proceedings, consisting in the fact that some tax advisors extend the proceedings by repeatedly filing such complaints. This is a special situation in which a tax decision is issued, but the deadline to appeal against it does not even start. Some efficient tax advisors can extend this procedure by up to half a year – all so that the proceedings last longer and in this way to lead to the limitation period of the obligation.
In our opinion, it is ordinary procedural abuse. In the previous version, we proposed to extend the limitation period with this type of multiple complaints, but after the analysis and after the comments of external partners we decided that we could do it differently and less severe. We simply eliminate the possibility of lodging a complaint against such a decision, which does not mean that we deprive the taxpayer of his right. The taxpayer will be able to raise his allegations in this respect in reference to the decision. Any decision, which no longer serves a complaint, may be complained of in the appeal.
PAP: What is the mandate about the extramural?
Jarosław Neneman: We are also introducing new to the Tax Criminal Code – with which it has long been successful on the basis of e.g. the Code of Conduct in cases of offenses – a solution in the form of an extramural mandate. The goal of the new type of mandate is, above all, the lack of need for a personal visit to the office. Today it is so that if we want to pay a tax mandate, we must personally go to the authority's headquarters. It is ordinary anachronism that makes life difficult for people who want to fulfill their duties. The idea is to simply pay a fine without having to appear in the office. In addition, we offer in the new version of the draft amendment to extend the premises to repeal a final mandate.
PAP: The project introduces the principle that it will no longer be necessary to issue a decision to return the stamp duty. The decision will only be necessary if the return is not justified. Where did you give up the need to issue a decision?
Jarosław Neneman: This is also a postulate that received from local government officials. They asked us to deal with these issues, because for them the whole procedure for returning stamp duty generates a huge number of proceedings. As they explained, they did not want to go through the entire procedure for issuing decisions in a situation where PLN 16 or PLN 21 is reimbursed, and the cost of servicing such proceedings is up to PLN 500. Generally, the scope of stamp duty should be analyzed and systemically modified.
First of all, the fee rates have not been changed for several years. Secondly, it happens that the lack of payment of stamp duty, it has no influence on the administrative activity it concerns. An example would be the appointment of a representative at the Tax Office. Apparently, this is associated with the need to pay a fee – to the account of the commune office – but the lack of this fee does not affect the validity of the power of attorney. This is obviously not bad in itself, but the motivation to pay in this case many people are missing. And thirdly – taking this fee, which is several zlotys, requires the entire bureaucratic procedure. You have to think about whether to let these fees be forgiven, because it often generates higher costs than benefits, and the income of JST ensure from the increase of other fees. But it's a matter for the next amendment and conversation.
Marek Siudaj (PAP) talked
ms/ mick/ ktl/
