The conceptual (substantial) crisis of modern taxation law is simply a clear fact. His symptoms are commonly known. These include in particular:
the absence of the main stated objectives that were intended to be achieved as a consequence of the introduction of subsequent changes in the legislation, e.g. the scale of taxation evasion of alleged large corporations has not been reduced, the scale of taxation evasion on goods and services has not been reduced, even the regression of advanced income taxation has not been mitigated, etc.,
all the applicable ideas that have been introduced to improve the taxation system, with time (and rather quickly) are, however, flawed or ineffective, and subsequent "reforms" consist in improving or repealing them; this has late been the case for reporting taxation schemes as well as the alleged jotpecs, which, for apparent reasons, did not seal the taxation on goods and services (reversely),
systemic destabilisation of the application of substantive taxation law: taxpayers live in the belief that the changes introduced by tape in a minute will be altered – first by hostile authoritative explanation and later by subsequent amendments.
The reason for this is so to ask, for this has not always been the case. The answer lies in the legislative process, which consists of 3 factual and formal stages: design, consultation and formal resolution.
The most spatology was phase one. It is not truly known (at least officially), who writes "projects of ministerial projects" of taxation laws and regulations. There was even a publicized (and then muted) case that 1 of the lobbyists had submitted comments on a task that had not yet formally existed. For more than 20 years, the circumstances of these projects have been a actual "grey zone" where all proverbial grasps are allowed, and my experiences and observations give a lot to think about. erstwhile I criticized publically the thought of gross taxation advantage for 1 of the excise goods (so-called fresh goods), the main supplier of which was (and is) 1 of the abroad companies, I met with attempts to intimidate and 1 of the "independent" journalists (today the star of right-wing television) greased a primitive pashquil about me. In fact, I am grateful to him for that, due to the fact that fewer people would want certain titles to compose something good about them. specified titles are on both sides of the political scene. Many another scientists have besides experienced akin experiences, which were filled with the thought that taxation ideas should be designed in the public interest.
The second stage, i.e. the external consultation of these projects, is purely façade, even though many take serious part in these activities. It's a waste of time. Under this apparent judgement are already approved regulations and the remainder is only a ritual theatre. No 1 cares about the postulates, all the effort of those who engage in this phase is in vain. fewer and in full marginal exceptions confirm only this rule.
Stage 3 is already a façade part of politics: here is party-coalic discipline; alternatively nobody breaks down, due to the fact that the taxation problem of politicians is not truly interested. The possible advantage of parliamentaryism, or a public dispute between politicians about the content of laws, is not revealed here. Why? due to the fact that political parties, especially those belonging to COPIS, are very seldom curious in taxation matters. If they are referring to these issues, it is only to promise something that they do not usually intend to accomplish. An example of a crown is the election announcement (for the second time) of an increase to PLN 60 1000 (i.e. twice), the amount free of individual income tax. The top paradox will be that this unfulfilled promise may be an chance to win 1 of the candidates for the office of President.
Or is the problem of conceptual taxation law even deeper? possibly we citizens don't know what we want and we don't take this problem seriously.
Prof. Witold Modzelewski
