5780447505

214 WMrUmm Sykiri. Ziarnamii KukUiki

IX

Within thc period of 1997-2005 the Constitutional TribunaJ rcv»cwtd the conformily wilh the Constitution of numerous provisions of tax le-gislation

In the casc of pcrsonal incomc uu. the Tribunal found the Art. 27a of the Pcrsonal Incomc Tax Act was not in conformity with the Constitution (judgment of 16® Dccanbcr 1997, K 8/97). The Articlc introduccd limits for dcductiblc cxpenses in casc of repair of apartments and dwclling-bouscs, changing the existing modd of dwelling-houscs rclicfs. In its judgment of 25® November 1997 (K 26/97) the Constitulional Tnbunal rcvicwcd the Act Amending the Pcrsonal Incomc Tax Act of 21“ Novctnbcr 19% which changcd 30 days bcforc the end of a tax year 30 provisions of Pcrsonal Incomc Tax Act. In the Constitulional TribunaPs view this amending aa was introduccd withoul propcrly long vacatio legis period.

Other Constilutional TribunaPs judgments concemed the abuses of a prohibition on discrimination of the taxpayers of pcrsonal incomc lax. In 2001 the Constitulional Tribunal annuled the provision of Personal Income Tax Aa which providcd tax cxcmptions for incomc from salcs of shares in public offer under the condition that they would be sold after 3 ycan period from the datę on which they wcrc introduccd into rcgulatcd marka (judgment of 24® April 2001, K 13/01). In its judgment of 22** May 2002 (K 06/02) the Constitulional Tribunal found Art. 52b of the Pcrsonal Income Tax Aa incompatiblc with the Constitution. The provision in ąuestion introduccd 2% lump-sum lax on financial mcans transferred by a taspayer abroad. The same dccision was madę with rcfcrcncc to Art. 26 sec. I point 8 of the Pcrsonal Incomc Tax Aa in 2002. This provision limited taxpuyen‘ right to dedua expenses incurrcd while acquiring the right of usufruct for building purposes (judgment of 22? Oaober 2002, SK 39/01). Finally, in its judgment of 20® April 2004 (8/03) the Constitulional Tribunal found that Art. 6 of the Pcrsonal Incomc Tax Aa was incompatiblc with the Cons-titulion in that it limited the nght to cieci a joint taxalion by spouses in casc of dcath of one of the spouses bcforc the joint tax return was filed.

The Constitulional Tribunal cxamincd also the Corporatc Incomc Tax Act. In its judgment of 8* Junc 1999 (SK. 12/98) the provisions of Corporatc Incomc Tax Act wcrc found to be incompatiblc with the Constilutioo, according to which companies with shares of forcign Capital wcrc dcprivtd of the right to deduet losscs.

Thcrc is a number of the Constitulional TribunaPs judgments conceming the Aa on Tax on Goods and Scrviccs and Exdsc Dutics (of January 1993). They conccrn the following issucs: rcgulations issued by the Minister

fUnrtćtlnt! thf Irtistoti* fomr 10 iaxes

215

of Financc for the purposc of implcmcntation of this act which wcrc found incompatiblc with the Constitution due to cxcccding of the Minister'* compctcncc (sec: judgment of 16“ Junc 1998, U 9/97 and judgment of 27* April 2004. K 24/03); unconslitutionality of rules on tax on goods and scry.ces and cxcise dutics rates on specialiscd journals and of rcspectivc rcgulation issued by the Minister of Financc determining the list of spccialisl magadnes to which the 0% ratę was applicable (judgment of 20¹* Junc 2002, 22/01); moreovcr. in its judgments of 8* Junc 2004 (SK 22/03) and of 11“ Octobcr 2004 the Tribunal referred to the unconstitutional depriving the taxpayers of their right to deduct an input tax.

The Constitutional Tribunal docs not find however incompatiblc with the Constitution the regulations incrcasing rates of cxdsc dutics on fucls by including in them tax on the mcans of transport (judgment of 1“ Scplcmber 1998. U 1/98), the tax on goods and scrvices on pawnshop scrvices (judgment of 17* January 2001, K 5/00). rcfcrcncc in the provisions regulating cxcise dutics to statistics issued by Central Statistical Office (judgment of 3* April 2001. 32/99), lcvying on taxi-drivers the obligation to possess cash-registers (judgment of 12“ July 2005, P 11,03).

The Constitulional Tribunal rcvicwed also the compatibility with the Constitution of somc dutics lcvicd by communes such as market duty (judgment of 14“ September 2001, SK 16/00), fees for parking on public roads and for passage of oversi*cd vchides (judgment of 10“ Dcccmbcr 2002, P 6/02); and conforminy with the Constitution of tbc obligation to pay radio and lclcvision liccnoc fees (judgment of 7“ September 2004, SK 30/03).

Morcover, the Constitulional Tribunal found incompatiblc with the Constitution the Tax Amnesty and Proprictary Dedaralion Act (judgment of 20“ November 2002. K 41/02) and generał anti-avoidancc elause introduccd in General Tax Law (judgment of 11“ May 2005, K 4/03).