“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 Administracjihttps://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 timeReferences
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
Statistics
Downloads
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
