587 KB44 KB201620242017Podlipnik, Jernejštevilka:1/2letnik:53str. 35-49, 109-110ISSN:1318-2277COBISSID:15707985URN:URN:NBN:SI:doc-7VZ649F7slGospodarski vestnikInštitut za javno upravoJavna upravacenitev davčne osnovedavčni postopekdavek od neprijavljenih dohodkovdavkidokazni elementidokazovanjeestimation of tax baseevidence elementspravica do dokazaprovingtaxtax procedurethe right to evidencethe tax on unreported incomeDokazovanje v davčnih zadevah| razvoj teorije in sodne prakse|The responsibility for correctness of fact finding in tax matters lies both on the tax administration and on taxpayers. To fulfil his or her responsibility many obligations are imposed on the taxpayer, such as keeping the books, issuing the invoices, submitting tax returns etc. If the taxpayer complies with his or her responsibilities, tax authority must prove beyond reasonable doubt that taxpayer's returns are incorrect and that he or she should have stated higher revenues, turnover etc., but when it is demonstrated without reasonable doubt that he or she does not, tax authority is entitled to estimate the probable tax base, and the taxpayer can prove that the tax base was wrongly estimated (reversed burden of proof). This concept enables an appropriate balance between tax authority and taxpayer when dealing with proving. But this balance is diminished in the so called tax on unreported income where the reversal of tax burden happens although it is only presumed that the taxpayer has perhaps not reported all of his or her income in recent years. In these cases, taxpayers often find themselves in evidence distress and they lose the case just because they are unable to prove their statements (the tax authority decides on the basis of the burden of proof). So although in recent years the Slovenian Supreme Court has done a lot to provide constitutional proving standards in the tax law cases, it is likely that the evolution of jurisprudence has not been finishedV davčnih zadevah je odgovornost za pravilno ugotovitev dejstev porazdeljena med davčno upravo in zavezanca. Da bi izpolnil svoj del odgovornosti, so zavezancu naložene številne obveznosti, denimo vodenje dokumentacije, izdaja računov, vlaganje obračunov in napovedi ipd. Če zavezanec izpolni naložene obveznosti, mora davčna uprava onkraj razumnega dvoma dokazati, da zavezančev obračun ali napoved izkazuje prenizke prihodke, promet ipd. Če pa davčna uprava onkraj razumnega dvoma dokaže, da je zavezanec kršil svoje dolžnosti, je upravičena oceniti davčno osnovo s stopnjo verjetnosti, zavezanec pa lahko nato dokaže, da je bila ta napačno ocenjena (obrnjeno dokazno breme). Gre za koncept, ki omogoča ustrezno ravnotežje med davčnim organom in zavezancem na področju dokazovanja. Toda ta koncept podre ureditev davka od nenapovedanih dohodkov, pri katerem se dokazno breme prevali na zavezanca že, ko davčna uprava zgolj domneva, da bi zavezanec lahko ne prijavil dohodkov v preteklih letih. V teh primerih se zavezanci pogosto znajdejo v dokazni stiski in v postopku ne uspejo zgolj zato, ker svojih trditev ne morejo dokazati in davčni organ odloča zgolj po dokaznem bremenu. Čeprav je torej slovensko Vrhovno sodišče v zadnjih letih na področju dokazovanja v davčnih zadevah naredilo velik korak k zagotovitvi ustavnih dokaznih standardov, se zdi, da se razvoj sodne prakse na dokaznem področju še ni ustavilTEXTznanstveno časopisjejournalsSlovenian National E-content AggregatorNational and University Library of SloveniaUniverza v Ljubljani, Pravna fakulteta