Retroaktivnost zakona u poreskom pravu

Abstract

U uporednom poreskom pravu u načelu važi pravilo da zakon nema povratni efekat; ono se može naći u ustavima ili izvedeno od strane ustavnih sudova iz principa pravne sigurnosti. Pitanje retroaktivnosti ne može se postaviti kod uvođenja poreza na imovinu, jer je tu predmet oporezivanja po prirodi stvari imovina kao rezultat akumulacije nepotrošenog dohotka iz prethodnih perioda. Istina, u mnogim pravnim sistemima dopuštena je retroaktivnost pod striktno postavljenim uslovima. Autori razlikuju retroaktivnost od retrospektivnosti, gde se, kod ove druge, koja je u načelu dopuštena, zakon primenjuje na buduće posledice oporezivog događaja koji se desio pre njegovog donošenja, i to bez prelaznog rešenja. Analizirajući uticaj Radbruhovih vrednosti sadržanih u ideji prava na principe intertemporalnog prava, oni zaključuju da zabrana retroaktivnosti podrazumeva primat principa pravne sigurnosti, dok retrospektivnost u prvi plan stavlja principe svrsishodnosti i jednakosti. Ukazano je na stav Evropskog suda za ljudska prava da poreski zakon primenjen retroaktivno ne predstavlja per se povredu prava na neometano uživanje imovine, pri čemu Sud razrađuje uslove pod kojima bi takva primena mogla biti neproporcionalna. Pošto je Srbija i Crna Gora ratifikovala Evropsku konvenciju za zaštitu ljudskih prava i osnovnih sloboda, ovakav stav Suda je relevantan za srpskog zakonodavca.

As a rule, in comparative tax law statutes do not have a retroactive effect. This principle may be either postulated in constitutions or derived by constitutional courts from the principle of legal certainty. The issue of retroactivity cannot be raised in the case of imposition of a property tax, since its taxable object per definitionem is property representing the result of the accumulation of unspent income realised in previous periods. Indeed, retroactivity is allowed in many legal systems subject to some strict conditions. The authors distinguish between retroactivity and retrospectivity, the latter being in principle permissible and denoting cases where a statute is applicable without grandfathering to the future consequences of a taxable event that occurred before its enacting. Analyzing the impact of Radbruch's values contained in the idea of law (legal certainty, purposiveness and equality) on the principles of intertemporal law, the authors conclude that the prohibition of retroactivity implies the primacy of the principle of legal certainty, while retrospectivity puts in the foreground the principles of purposiveness and equality. The European Court of Human Rights considers that retroactive application of a tax statute does not represent per se a violation of the right to peaceful enjoyment of property. However, the Court developed conditions that, being unfulfilled, qualify the application as disproportionate. Since Serbia and Montenegro ratified the European Convention on Human Rights, ECtHR's positions are relevant for Serbia's legislator.