Uticaj opomene za plaćanje poreskog duga na tok poreske zastarelosti

Abstract

U članku se analizira pitanje da li opomena za plaćanje poreskog duga prekida tok zastarelosti prava Poreske uprave na utvrđivanje i naplatu poreza ? Autor je analizirao poreskopravni institut opomene za plaćanje poreskog duga kroz praksu poreskih organa (službena mišljenja Ministarstva finansija u pogledu relevantnog instituta) i sudsku praksu (Vrhovnog suda, sada Vrhovnog kasacionog suda, i Ustavnog suda). Ustanovili smo da postoji razilaženje u shvatanju instituta poreske opomene i primene tog instituta u poreskoj praksi. Ustanovljena je tendencija Poreske uprave da, uprkos tome što ovaj institut ne smatra poreskim upravnim aktom, ili aktom pravno rešavajućeg karaktera, tumači opomenu kao akt kojim se zastarelost prekida. Dokazujemo da dostavljanje opomene poreskom dužniku ne prekida tok poreske zastarelosti, jer nije reč o aktu pravno rešavajućeg karaktera, što zakon izričito zahteva.

The scope of analysis in this article is an issue that has been disputed in practice. We ask ourselves does admonishment for tax debt interrupt the term of statute of limitations in tax law ? Author has analysed the statute of limitations in tax law through legal practice of tax authorities (official oppinions of the Ministry of finance regarding the issue at hand) and judicial practice (Supreme court and the Constitutional court). It has been established that there is a difference in understanding the institute of admonishment and its application. It has also been established that, in spite of the fact that tax authorities do not consider admonishment as a tax administrative act or addressing legal act, it is interpreted as sufficient to break the term of statute of limitations. We shall prove that delivery of admonishment to a tax payer does not interrupt or break the term of statute of limitations because it is not an addressing legal act, which is expressly demadned by the law.