Fundamental Rights and the Obligation to Publicly Disclose Information on Tax Strategy

Adam Szymacha

doi:10.18778/2391-6478.4.32.01

Authors

Adam Szymacha Uniwersytet Łódzki, Szkoła Doktorska Nauk Społecznych https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9372-9647

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18778/2391-6478.4.32.01

Keywords:

tax transparency, fundamental rights, proportionality, right to remain silent, right to privacy, tax strategies publication

Abstract

The aim of the article: The presented study concerns the problem of violations of fundamental rights caused by the law regulation contained in art. 27c of the Corporate Income Tax Act in Poland. This regulation provides obligation to publish information about introduced tax strategies. Yet, it may endanger many human rights and this article focuses on two of them – the right to remain silent, and the right of privacy. The aim of this article is to make an analysis of the standards presented by the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights. Additionally, the standard presented by the Polish Constitutional Court is presented.

Methodology: To decode these standards the comparative law method is used. Especially the case laws of these courts are presented and additionally, they are completed by the comparison of the acts that concern similar law institutions but come from different lawmakers.

Results of the research: The results of the study do not provide a clear answer. However, they do allow for an approximation of the issue of possible violations of fundamental rights by the analyzed regulation. It is very likely that the analyzed regulation violates the right to remain silent and it is even close to certainty that the analyzed laws violate the right to privacy. The problem is not only the interference in these rights, but in its character as well. Under certain circumstances, interference with fundamental rights is acceptable but must be proportionate. Examined laws are only explained in terms of budgetary balance and the academic world points out that the purpose of this type of regulation is mainly of administrative convenience. This is far too little to consider this interference with fundamental rights imperative.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Act of 15 February 1992 about corporate income tax, Journal of Laws 1992, No. 21, item 86.
Google Scholar

Application no. 108/28/84 Funke v France.
Google Scholar

Application no. 19187/91 Saunders v United Kingdom.
Google Scholar

Application no. 37971/97 Société Colas Est v Francji.
Google Scholar

Application no. 38544/97 Weh v Austria.
Google Scholar

Application no. 623332/00 Segerstedt-Wiberg v Sweden.
Google Scholar

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, OJ. EU C 326/391.
Google Scholar

Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Journal of Laws 1993, No. 61, item 284.
Google Scholar

Decision on the inadmissibility of application No. 76574/01 Allen v United Kingdom.
Google Scholar

Drywa, A. (2020). Uszczelnianie systemu podatkowego a problemy, których nie możemy tracić z pola widzenia. Rozważania na przykładzie prawa podatnika do prywatności. W: D.J. Gajewski, red., Uszczelnienie systemu podatkowego w Polsce. Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer.
Google Scholar

Explanatory Memorandum to the Government Bill amending the Personal Income Tax Act, the Corporate Income Tax Act, the Act on Lump Sum Income Tax on Certain Incomes Earned by Natural Persons and certain other acts, print No. 642.
Google Scholar

Garlicki, L., red. (2010). Chapter I, Prawa i wolności, Art 8. W: L. Garlicki, red., Konwencja o Ochronie Praw Człowieka i Podstawowych Wolności, Tom I, Komentarz do artykułów 1–18. Warszawa: C.H. Beck.
Google Scholar

Górski, M. (2018). Karta Praw Podstawowych UE jako living instrument. W: J. Barcik, M. Półtorak, red., Unia Europejska w przededniu Brexitu. Warszawa: C.H. Beck.
Google Scholar

Hofmański, P. and Wróbel, A. (2010). Art. 6 Prawo do rzetelnego procesu sądowego. W: L. Garlicki, red., Konwencja o Ochronie Praw Człowieka i Podstawowych Wolności, Tom I, Komentarz do artykułów 1–18. Warszawa: C.H. Beck.
Google Scholar

Joined cases C-92/09 i C-93/09 Volker und Markus Schecke GbR i Hartmut Eifert v Land Hessen, ECLI:EU:C:2010:662.
Google Scholar

Judgement C-238/99P Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij and others v Commision, ECLI:EU:C:2002:582.
Google Scholar

Judgement C-465/00 Rechnungshof v Österreichischer Rundfunk, ECLI:EU:C:2003:294.
Google Scholar

Judgement C-468 Asociación Nacional de Establecimientos Financieros de Crédito (ASNEF) and C-469/10 Federación de Comercio Electrónico y Marketing Directo (FECEMD) v Administración del Estado, OJ EU 25/18, CELEX: 62010CA0468.
Google Scholar

Judgement C-496/17 Deutsche Post AG v Hauptzollamt Köln, ECLI:EU:C:2019:26.
Google Scholar

Judgement C-524/06 Heinz Hubner v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, ECLI:EU:C:2008:724.
Google Scholar

Judgement C-94/00 Roquette Frères SA v Directeur général de la concurrence, de la consommation et de la répression des fraudes, ECLI:EU:C:2002:603.
Google Scholar

Judgment of 29 April 2020 of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw, III SA/WA2402/19.
Google Scholar

Judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal of 19 February 2002, U 3/01, OTK ZU No. 1/2002.
Google Scholar

Judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal of 20.11.2002 K41/02 OTK-A 2002.
Google Scholar

Judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal of 24.6.1997, K 21/96, OTK 1997, No. 2.
Google Scholar

Judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal of. 20.11.2002 K41/02 OTK-A 2002, No. 6.
Google Scholar

Judgment of the Court of Justice of the EU C-481/19 DB v Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob) ECLI:EU:C:2021:84.
Google Scholar

Judgment of the Court of Justice of the EU of 18.10.1989, C-374/87 Orkem, ECLI:EU:C:1989:387.
Google Scholar

Judgment T-112/98 Mannesmannröhren-Werke AG v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2001:61.
Google Scholar

Judgment T-135/09 Nexans France SAS and Nexans SA v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2012:596.
Google Scholar

Kowalik-Bańczyk, K. (2012). Prawo do obrony w unijnych postępowaniach antymonopolowych. W kierunku unifikacji standardów proceduralnych w Unii Europejskiej. Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer.
Google Scholar

Mariański, A. (2019). Polska legislacja podatkowa – dokąd zmierzamy? W: J. Szołno-Koguc, red., Ewolucja roli podatków i systemów podatkowych we współczesnych gospodarkach. Lublin: Wydawnictwo UMCS.
Google Scholar

Mariański, A. and Michalak, A. (2020). Wprowadzenie obowiązku raportowania schematów podatkowych. Analiza prawno-konstytucyjna. Przegląd Podatkowy, 8.
Google Scholar

Nowicki, M.A. (2010). Wokół Konwencji Europejskiej, Komentarz do Europejskiej Konwencji Praw Człowieka. Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer.
Google Scholar

Safjan, M. and Bosek, L. (2016). Art 47, Zasada ochrony życia prywatnego. W: M. Safjan, L. Bosek, red., Konstytucja RP. Tom I. Komentarz do art. 1–86. Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer, Legalis [Accessed 1.06.2021].
Google Scholar

Sobczak, J. (2013). Tytuł II: Wolności, Art. 8 [Ochrona danych osobowych]. W: A. Wróbel, red., Karta Praw Podstawowych Unii Europejskiej, Komentarz. Warszawa: C.H. Beck.
Google Scholar

Treaty of European Union, OJ.C 326 , 26/10/2012 P. 0001–0390.
Google Scholar

Turno, B. (2009). Prawo odmowy przekazania informacji służącej wykryciu naruszenia reguł konkurencji w orzecznictwie Europejskiego Trybunału Sprawiedliwości. Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny, LXXI(3).
Google Scholar

Vedsted-Hansen, J. (2014). Article 7 – Respect for Private and Family Life (Private Life, Home and Communications). W: St. Peers, T. Hervey, J. Kenner and A. Ward, red., The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, A Commentary. Oxford: Beck/Hart.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.5771/9783845259055_196