“Tenacity” as a significant factor of fiscal offence from the Article 57, Section 1 of Penal and Fiscal Code – chosen problems for interpretation and evidence

Małgorzata Marciniak

Uniwersytet Opolski. Wydział Prawa i Administracji
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1210-9623

Abstract

Article 57(1) of the Fiscal Criminal Code penalises a fiscal misdemeanour that consists in a taxpayer’s persistent failure to pay tax on time. The element of ‘persistence’ is subject to assessment, giving rise to many doubts and controversies. As regards the offences described in Articles 209(1), 218(1a) and 190a(1) of the Criminal Code, an objective-subjective understanding of that element is prevalent, which takes into account the prolonged nature and repeatability of conduct in question, as well as the perpetrator’s special, negative attitude to his obligation. It is emphasised, at the same time, that the persistence element is only established when the perpetrator has an objective possibility to fulfil his obligations. However, in its order of 28 November 2013, the Supreme Court adopted a partly different interpretation of ‘persistence’, according to which it may be indicated not only by the cyclic nature of the conduct, but also by a onetime, but prolonged, omission to pay a tax that is payable on a one-time basis. That interpretation has been criticised by many legal scholars. It is, nevertheless, frequently applied in the practice of the justice system. Following amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure, introduced by the Act of 27 September 2013 on amending the Code of Criminal Procedure and certain other acts, which came into force on 1 July 2015, evidence is taken, on principle, by the parties, after it is allowed by the division president or the court. The court may allow and take evidence exofficio only in exceptional cases justified by special circumstances. Currently, it is, therefore, the trial parties that are required to prove whether the ‘persistence’ element is present or absent. The amendment of the provisions concerned and the existing case law have induced the author to take up the issue in question.

Keywords:

persistence, failure to pay tax on time

Andrejew I., Ustawowe znamiona przestępstwa, Warszawa 1959.
  Google Scholar

Błachnio A., Rola-Stężycka K., Uporczywe niewpłacanie podatku w terminie a przedawnienie karalności, „Prokuratura i Prawo” 2009, nr 3.
  Google Scholar

Bogdan G., Nita A., Raglewski J., Światłowski A., Kodeks karny skarbowy z komentarzem, Gdańsk 2000.
  Google Scholar

Buchała K., Komentarz do kodeksu karnego. Część ogólna, Warszawa 1994.
  Google Scholar

Buchała K., Zoll A., Kodeks karny. Część ogólna, Kraków 1998.
  Google Scholar

Dukiet-Nagórska T., Hoc S., Kalitowski M., Sitarz O., Tyszkiewicz L., Wilk L., Prawo karne. Część ogólna, szczególna i wojskowa, red. T. Dukiet-Nagórska, Warszawa 2014.
  Google Scholar

Gardocki L., Prawo karne, Warszawa 2015.
  Google Scholar

Grzegorczyk T., Kodeks karny skarbowy. Komentarz, Warszawa 2006.
  Google Scholar

Kardas P., Łabuda G., Razowski T., Kodeks karny skarbowy. Komentarz, Warszawa 2012.
  Google Scholar

Kłączyńska N., [w:] Kodeks karny. Część szczególna. Komentarz, red. J. Giezek, Warszawa 2014.
  Google Scholar

Kodeks karny. Komentarz, red. M. Filar, Warszawa 2014.
  Google Scholar

Kodeks karny. Komentarz, red. O. Górniok, Gdańsk 2002/2003.
  Google Scholar

Kotowski W., Komentarz do art. 57 Kodeksu karnego skarbowego, LEX 2015, nr 1441277156301, teza 4.
  Google Scholar

Kowalski S., Glosa do postanowienia SN z dnia 28 listopada 2013 r., sygn. I KZP 11/13, LEX 2015, teza 1, 4.
  Google Scholar

Leśniewski J., Karnoprawna ochrona praw pracownika według art. 190 k.k., Warszawa 1990.
  Google Scholar

Łabuda G., Glosa do postanowienia SN z dnia 28.11.2013 r., sygn. I KZP 11/13, LEX 2015, teza 1, 4.
  Google Scholar

Marciniak J., Odpowiedzialność karna pracodawcy, Warszawa 2010.
  Google Scholar

Marek A., Prawo karne, Warszawa 2011.
  Google Scholar

Michalski J., Komentarz do art. 57 Kodeksu karnego skarbowego, LEX 2015, teza 2.
  Google Scholar

Mozgawa M., Komentarz do art. 209 kodeksu karnego, LEX 2015, teza 10–11.
  Google Scholar

Prusak F., Komentarz do art. 57 kodeksu karnego skarbowego, LEX 2015, nr B573823F762, teza 8.
  Google Scholar

Siwik Z., Komentarz do art. 209 kodeksu karnego, LEX 2015, teza 6–8.
  Google Scholar

Stolarczyk W., Uporczywe niewpłacanie podatku w terminie (kilka uwag na tle art. 57 § 1 Kodeksu karnego skarbowego), „Przegląd Orzecznictwa Podatkowego” 2014, nr 6.
  Google Scholar

Szczurek B., Koncepcja ochrony praw podatnika. Geneza, rozwój, perspektywy, Warszawa 2008.
  Google Scholar

Tyszka P., Zadania prawa karnego skarbowego i praktyczne możliwości ich realizacji, „Prokuratura i Prawo” 2007, nr 1.
  Google Scholar

Warylewski J., Prawo karne. Część ogólna, Warszawa 2004.
  Google Scholar

Wielgolewska A., Piaseczny A., Kodeks karny skarbowy. Komentarz, Warszawa 2012.
  Google Scholar

Wilk L., Uporczywe niepłacenie podatku – kontrowersja kryminalizacyjna, „Prokuratura i Prawo” 2010, nr 7–8.
  Google Scholar

Wilk L., Zagrodnik J., Kodeks karny skarbowy. Komentarz, Warszawa 2014.
  Google Scholar

Wilk L., Zagrodnik J., Prawo karne skarbowe, Warszawa 2009.
  Google Scholar

Wojciechowski J., Kodeks karny. Komentarz, Warszawa 2002.
  Google Scholar


Published
2016-03-15

Cited by

Marciniak, M. (2016). “Tenacity” as a significant factor of fiscal offence from the Article 57, Section 1 of Penal and Fiscal Code – chosen problems for interpretation and evidence. The Opole Studies in Administration and Law, 14(1), 59–76. https://doi.org/10.25167/osap.1578

Authors

Małgorzata Marciniak 
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1210-9623

Statistics

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.


License

Author’s economic rights to published works are held by Opole University (collective works) and individual Authors (individual parts of the collective work, ones that form a separate entity).

The journal Opole Studies in Administration and Law accepts for publication only works which have not been in circulation before.

On the basis of the Regulation (2016/679) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (referred to as General Data Protection Regulation or RODO) Opole University, based at 11a Plac Kopernika, 45-040 Opole, is the personal data controller for all the authors publishing their works in the Opole Studies in Administration and Law.

The articles published in Opole Studies in Administration and Law are available under a licence Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).

 

For aricles till 2017 your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation  –  see: 
Ustawa z dnia 4 lutego 1994 r. o prawie autorskim i prawach pokrewnych

Read more about the license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0:
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

View Legal Code:
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode