219 KB73 KB201320252025Homec, RobertKovač, Poloncaštevilka:1letnik:51str. 32-57ISSN:0353-6521COBISSID_HOST:227070979URN:URN:NBN:SI:doc-LRSP5H4UslGospodarski vestnikInštitut za delo pri Pravni fakultetiZveza Društev pravnikov v gospodarstvu SlovenijePodjetje in deloanaliza drugostopenjskega upravnega odločanjaappealcomparing Slovenia and Austriadavčni postopekjudicial reviewlegal protectionpravno varstvoprimerjava Slovenija in Avstrijapritožbasecond-instance administrative decision-making analysissodno varstvotax procedureIzbrani praktični izzivi upravnega in sodnega varstva pravic zavezancev pri odmeri davkov|Despite the primary public interest in tax collection to ensure financing common social needs, taxpayers must have guaranteed constitutional rights, in particular the right to appeal and to judicial protection. Therefore, the procedural regulation of the tax procedure under the Tax Procedure Act and the General Administrative Procedure Act (GAPA) is crucial. However, hereby several issues arise, e.g. when, according to Article 251 of the GAPA, the appellate body, i.e. the Ministry of Finance (MoF), should decide on a justified appeal by itself and when it should refer the case back to the Financial Administration of the Republic of Slovenia (FARS) for a new proceeding. Moreover, it is an open question whether the administrative appeal, which is a procedural prerequisite for an administrative dispute in Slovenia, is as effective in resolving disputes as in Austria, where the reform has in 2014 transferred instance legal protection directly to the court level under the jurisdiction of the Federal Finance Court. Using different methods, normative, comparative, analysis of administrative statistics, case studies and interviews, it has been concluded that the Slovenian regulation of the protection of the rights of taxpayers is relatively adequate. On the other hand, in the light of the empirical data and their systemic evaluation, in order to conduct tax proceedings more efficiently, it would be advisable to strengthen the human resources at the MoF and to improve the work of the FARS, so as to reduce the number of justified appeals in the first placePobiranje davkov mora kljub primarnemu javnemu interesu pridobivanja sredstev za skupne družbene potrebe zavezancem za davek zagotavljati ustavne garancije, zlasti pravico do pritožbe oziroma sodnega varstva. Zato je procesnopravna ureditev davčnega postopka, pri nas po Zakonu o davčnem postopku in Zakonu o splošnem upravnem postopku, ključna, pri čemer pa se pojavlja več vprašanj, na primer kdaj naj po 251. členu ZUP pritožbeni organ, tj. Ministrstvo za finance (MF), ob utemeljeni pritožbi sam odloči in kdaj vrne zadevo v nov postopek na Finančno upravo Republike Slovenije (FURS). Poleg tega je odprto vprašanje, ali se prek upravne pritožbe, ki je v Sloveniji procesna predpostavka za upravni spor, enako učinkovito rešujejo spori kot v Avstriji, kjer je z reformo instančno varstvo prešlo od leta 2014 neposredno na sodno raven v pristojnost Zveznega finančnega sodišča. Z različnimi metodami, normativno, primerjalno, analizo upravne statistike, študijo primerov in intervjuji, je ugotovljeno, da je slovenska ureditev (pri)tožbenega varstva pravic strank v davčnih zadevah razmeroma ustrezna, bi pa glede na empirične podatke in njihovo sistemsko vrednotenje kazalo za učinkovitejše vodenje davčnih postopkov okrepiti kadrovske vire na MF in izboljšati delo FURS, da bi se število utemeljenih pritožb zmanjšalo pri izvoruTEXTznanstveno časopisjejournalsSlovenian National E-content AggregatorNational and University Library of Slovenia