Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12259/34888
Type of publication: Magistro darbas / Master thesis
Field of Science: Teisė / Law
Author(s): Mikalauskaitė, Gabrielė
Title: Ar nekilnojamojo turto apmokestinimas nepažeidžia lygybės ir teisingumo principų?
Other Title: Does the taxation of the real estate not infringe the principles of equality and justice?
Extent: 43 p.
Date: 2-Jun-2017
Event: Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas. Teisės fakultetas
Keywords: Mokesčių teisė;Nekilnojamas turtas;Apmokestinimas;Lygybė;Teisingumas;Taxation;Real estate;Tax law;Equality;Justice
Abstract: Šio tyrimo tikslas yra išsiaiškinti ar nekilnojamojo turto (NT) apmokestinimas nepažeidžia lygybės ir teisingumo principų. Tikslui pasiekti keliami šie uždaviniai: 1) atskleisti NT apmokestinimo prielaidas ir privalumus; 2) atskleisti lygybės ir teisingumo mokesčių teisėje turinį 3) nustatyti NT apmokestinimo aspektus; 4) įvertinti NT apmokestinimo reformos atitiktį lygybės ir teisingumo principams. Tyrimo aktualumą ir mokslinę problemą suponuoja gyventojų NT mokesčio rezultatai nuo jo įvedimo. Taip pat stinga mokesčio atitikties lygybės ir teisingumo principams. Todėl darbe keliami šie klausimai: kaip lygybė ir teisingumas suvokiamas mokesčių teisėje? ar dabartinis NT mokestis atitinka šiuos principus? kokie sprendimai galėtų būti padaryti, kad NT apmokestinimas keltų kuo mažiau abejonių dėl atitikimo lygybei ir teisingumui? Išanalizavus galima daryti išvadas, kad gyventojų NT apmokestinimas buvo grįstas tiek TVF rekomendacijomis, tiek užsienio valstybių praktika, tiek siekiu papildyti valstybės biudžetą. Tarp apmokestinimo principų teisingumą ir lygybę labiausiai atitinka pajėgumų mokėti teorija (angl. Ability to pay theory). Teigiamai į iškeltą klausimą leidžia atsakyti šios nuostatos: gyventojų NT mokestis yra progresinis mokestis, kuris vertinamas kaip socialiai teisingas; apmokestinimo išimtys, atitinkančios socialinės valstybės vertybes. Abejonių kelia šie aspektai: ar nustatyta prabangos riba tikrai yra socialiai teisinga; ar tikrai tikslinga NT mokesčiui taikyti tik turto, bet ne pajamų kriterijų; ar mokesčiui nustatyta pakankamai lengvatų. NT mokestis gali būti reformuojamas keliomis kryptimis: 1) visuotinai apmokestinant NT; 2) pakeitus (padidinus) apmokestinamąją bazę; 3) šio mokesčio visai atsisakius. Darbe siūloma: a) reformuojant NT apmokestinimą visų pirma įvertinti galimą poveikį lygybei ir teisingumui; b) palikti šį mokestį, tačiau greta nustatyti ir mokesčio mokėtojo pajamų kriterijų; c) padidinti apmokestinamąją bazę atsižvelgiant į Lietuvos ekonominius rodiklius; d) praplėsti lengvatų atvejus, jas siejant su asmens socialiniu pažeidžiamumu; Tyrimo hipotezė pasitvirtina iš dalies. NT mokestis gali kisti su lygybės ir teisingumo sampratos suvokimu. Daugiausiai tai reikia vertinti socialinio teisingumo prizme, nusatatant socialines lengvatas.
The aim of this research is to provide a well-reasoned answer to the following question: does the taxation of the real estate (RE) not infringe the principles of equality and justice? The object of the research is the taxation of real estate, the concepts of equality and justice in tax law. The object of the research is the luxury real estate tax. To reach the aim the following objectives were raised: 1. to reveal the preconditions and advantages of modernization of RE taxation; 2. to reveal the content of such concepts as equality and justice in tax law and their implementation in RE taxation 3) to find out the more important RE taxation aspects in the context of implementation of equality and justice; 4) to evaluate the compliance of RE taxation reform to the principles of equality and justice. The research hypothesis is that RE taxation does not infringe the principles of equality and justice. The research was carried out by applying such scientific research methods as document and scientific literature analysis, comparative, systematic, retrospective and teleological methods. The relevance and scientific problem of the research are presupposed by several aspects. Firstly, the RE taxation results from the tax introduction to 2012 are very poor (only about 22-70 percent of planned income was received), the taxation system has already been reformed (by increasing the taxation base), therefore until now (2017) there is a necessity to reform the RE taxation system, because the existing economic decisions and legal regulations failed. Secondly, there is no doctrinal basis of compliance of RE taxation with the essence of equality and justice, because these questions were analysed by Lithuanian authors inconsistently. That leads to the main problems of the research: how are the concepts of equality and justice understood in tax law? Do the existing regulations of RE taxation comply with the principles of equality and justice? What tax decisions might be made in order the potential non-compliance of RE taxation to the principles of equality and justice was less questionable? The following elements determine the originality of the research: introduction of a personal position towards the compliance of RE taxation to the principles of equality and justice; analysis of the content of the principles of equality and justice in tax law; analysis of problematic aspects when ensuring equality and justice in RE taxation; ways of reforming RE taxation by evaluating each possibility in the context of equality and justice. The analysis performed led to the main conclusions. The taxation of real estate was a reasonably grounded reform of the tax system based on both IMF (International Monetary Fund) recommendations and practice of foreign countries as well as general need to find a new source to increase the state’s budget. Considering taxation methods, the ability to pay theory complies with the principles of equality and justice the best. In this case, the luxury RE tax is considered to be a progressive and luxury tax. The answer to the main thesis is not a straightforward one. The below conditions led to a positive answer: the RE tax is a progressive tax which is considered to be socially just as those who pay it have expensive RE; existence of taxation exceptions complying with the values of social country. This allows us to come slightly closer to the ideals of solidarity, equality and justice. Some aspects raise doubts, for example, does the established luxury limit is really socially just; is it really purposeful to apply only property, but not income criteria for RE tax application; are there enough privileges established and so on. Generally, equality and justice should be evaluated systemically in the system of taxation principles; however, they also have contradictive elements. The RE tax might, but not necessarily, be reformed in different ways: 1) by general taxation of RE; 2) by changing (increasing) the taxation base; 3) by refusing this tax at all. The existing taxation may stay as well. Each of the decisions might have at least a slight impact on the equality and justice. The increase of RE taxation base might raise a question of how much can the luxury limit be lowered. General taxation is often seen as an implementation of formal equality, but it is very unjust from the social perspective as the taxation would affect even the poorest citizens. The situation could hardly be saved by differentiating the tax rate based on the value of owned RE. Hereby it is suggested: a) to evaluate the possible effects of RE taxation to equality and justice before making reforms – to do this by public opinion monitoring and questionnaires; b) to leave the luxury RE tax, but at the same time to establish the criteria of income of tax payer; c) to increase the taxation base by reducing the taxable value up to 150 000 euros in consideration of the Lithuanian economic indexes; d) to expand the scope of RE tax privileges in the RE law by relating them to personal social vulnerability (e.g. people with low income, retired people, etc.), use of residential place (e.g. rent for students, etc.). The research hypothesis was partly confirmed. The answer to the above raised question depends on the choice of theory of the concept of equality and justice, therefore this question stays open and might change together with the evolution of the understanding of equality and justice in a specific society and time period. Mainly it should be evaluated within the prism of social justice by establishing social privileges.
Internet: https://eltalpykla.vdu.lt/1/34888
https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12259/34888
Appears in Collections:2017 m. (TF mag.)

Files in This Item:
gabriele_mikalauskaite_md.pdf663.08 kBAdobe PDF   Restricted AccessView/Open   Request a copy

Show full item record

Page view(s)

82
checked on Oct 13, 2019

Download(s)

4
checked on Oct 13, 2019

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.