Advanced

Reglerna om ansvarsfrihet vid rättelse av oriktig uppgift på eget initiativ

Karlsson, Rebecca LU (2016) JURM02 20162
Department of Law
Abstract
In cases where inaccurate information has been sent to tax authorities, the responsible person is risking surcharge or in worse cases making herself guilty of tax offence. A basic rule implies that a surcharge means an additional 40 % to the normal taxes and when it comes to cases of tax offence, the ordinary penalties of criminal law, fines and prison, are practiced. The highest prison sentence for tax offence is six years and the prescription time for bigger cases are ten years. In the tax procedure act (2011:1244) and in the tax offence law (1971:69) there is however a rule that makes it possible for a person to be free from such responsibility.
If the responsible person puts the wrong information straight on her own initiative before... (More)
In cases where inaccurate information has been sent to tax authorities, the responsible person is risking surcharge or in worse cases making herself guilty of tax offence. A basic rule implies that a surcharge means an additional 40 % to the normal taxes and when it comes to cases of tax offence, the ordinary penalties of criminal law, fines and prison, are practiced. The highest prison sentence for tax offence is six years and the prescription time for bigger cases are ten years. In the tax procedure act (2011:1244) and in the tax offence law (1971:69) there is however a rule that makes it possible for a person to be free from such responsibility.
If the responsible person puts the wrong information straight on her own initiative before there is a reason to suppose that the tax authorities become aware of the shortcomings, she is free from responsibility. This is a fact even though the conditions for tax offence or surcharge are registered. This rule makes it possible to retreat from an already accomplished crime and avoid surcharge. The fact that the people who have withheld big amounts of tax money, through a fairly simple move can go free from responsibility for their shortcomings, has stirred up a great debate and made people get a sense of injustice. The essay aims at examining the rule of correction to find out what motivates that our legal system provides such a possibility of making yourself free from responsibility. Furthermore the essay aims at investigating under what circumstances a correction is possible or not possible with discharge from liability as a result.
By means of laws and preworks the law court has been given great opportunities to settle in what way the rules shall be practiced. In the custom you can learn that the interpretation of the law court not always matches the wording of the laws. What most of the times have been conclusive is that an external circumstance have had such a connection to the illegitimate information that the responsible person ought to suspect that the information will be noticed by the tax authorities. A correction that has been made in a situation like that, can not lead to discharge from liability. Whom the specific external circumstances are, that the law court evaluates of having connection to the illegitimate information, have varied. Historically, the rules' primary function appear to have been enforcing correct information. This ought to be the primary guideline when practicing the rules. Through the years, considerable numbers of resources have been used to prevent tax avoidance, which is a consequence of the taxes being a fundamental basic principle for the public activity.
For a correction to have the effect of discharging a person from liability, the restrictions set by the custom have to be taken into consideration. The idea is that the rules should be practiced only when it is likely that the the person responsible actually feels regret or have discovered a flaw and by that wants to do the right thing. One should not be able to practice the rule when an external circumstance has increased the risk of the illegitimate information being discovered. Hence the responsible person should not be able to prepare a correction and send it in only when she risks being revealed. However, the legislator means that the rules ought to be practiced generously, which can influence the preventive effect the system built up. The correction function is considered to be an approachable way for the tax authorities to obtain correct information from the ones responsible without having to put in a lot of time and resources investigating. (Less)
Abstract (Swedish)
Då oriktig uppgift lämnats till ledning för beskattning kan den uppgiftsskyldige riskera skattetillägg eller, i de svårare fallen, bli ansvarig för skattebrott. Ett skattetillägg utgår som huvudregel med ett pålägg om 40 % på den skatt som skulle ha erlagts och de vanliga straffrättsliga påföljderna, böter och fängelse, tillämpas vid skattebrott. Fängelsestraffet kan som högst bli sex år då oriktig uppgift lämnats och vid grövre skattebrott finns en preskriptionstid på tio år. I skatteförfarandelagen (2011:1244) och skattebrottslagen (1971:69) finns emellertid en regel som gör att den uppgiftsskyldige kan bli fri från båda de ovan nämnda ansvaren.
Om den uppgiftsskyldige rättar oriktig uppgift på eget initiativ, innan det funnits... (More)
Då oriktig uppgift lämnats till ledning för beskattning kan den uppgiftsskyldige riskera skattetillägg eller, i de svårare fallen, bli ansvarig för skattebrott. Ett skattetillägg utgår som huvudregel med ett pålägg om 40 % på den skatt som skulle ha erlagts och de vanliga straffrättsliga påföljderna, böter och fängelse, tillämpas vid skattebrott. Fängelsestraffet kan som högst bli sex år då oriktig uppgift lämnats och vid grövre skattebrott finns en preskriptionstid på tio år. I skatteförfarandelagen (2011:1244) och skattebrottslagen (1971:69) finns emellertid en regel som gör att den uppgiftsskyldige kan bli fri från båda de ovan nämnda ansvaren.
Om den uppgiftsskyldige rättar oriktig uppgift på eget initiativ, innan det funnits anledning att anta att Skatteverket uppmärksammat uppgiften, så inträder ansvarsfrihet. Detta trots att förutsättningarna för skattebrott samt skattetillägg redan inträtt. Reglerna innebär alltså att det går att tillbakaträda från ett annars redan fullbordat brott och att den uppgiftsskyldige kan undvika skattetillägg. Att de personer som undanhållit stora summor skattemedel, genom en relativt enkel åtgärd, kan undgå ansvar för felaktigheter har väckt stor debatt och har uppfattats som orättvist. Uppsatsen syftar till att undersöka reglerna om rättelse och att presentera argument för och emot tillhandahållandet av denna möjlighet till ansvarsbefrielse. Vidare syftar uppsatsen till att undersöka under vilka förutsättningar en rättelse går att göra respektive inte göra med ansvarsbefriande verkan.
Genom såväl lag som förarbeten har domstolen fått stora möjligheter att avgöra på vilket sätt reglerna ska tillämpas. I praxis kan man se att domstolens tolkning inte alltid stämmer överens med lagarnas ordalydelse. Det som i de flesta fall varit avgörande är att en yttre omständighet haft sådant samband med den oriktiga uppgiften att den uppgiftsskyldige borde anta att uppgiften kommer att upptäckas av Skatteverket. En rättelse som vidtagits i en sådan situation kan inte ge ansvarsbefriande verkan. Vilka de specifika yttre omständigheter är, som domstolen ansett har haft samband med den oriktiga uppgiften, har varierat. Historiskt sett synes reglerna främst haft funktionen att framtvinga ett korrekt uppgiftslämnande. Detta bör vara den främsta riktlinjen vid rättstillämpningen. Åtskilliga resurser har genom åren lagts ned för att förhindra skatteundandragandet, vilket är en följd av att skatten utgör en fundamental förutsättning för den offentliga verksamheten.
För att en rättelse ska kunna vidtas med ansvarsbefriande verkan måste de av praxis uppsatta gränserna beaktas. Meningen är att reglerna enbart ska tillämpas i de situationer där det är sannolikt att den uppgiftsskyldige faktiskt har ångrat sig, eller upptäckt ett fel, och därmed vill göra rätt för sig. Reglerna ska inte kunna tillämpas då en yttre omständighet har ökat upptäcktsrisken avseende den oriktiga uppgiften. Den uppgiftsskyldige ska alltså inte kunna planera att vidta rättelse och skicka in den först då upptäckt befaras. Lagstiftaren anser dock att reglerna ska tillämpas generöst, vilket kan påverka den preventiva effekt systemet byggt upp. Rättelsefunktionen anses vara ett smidigt sätt för det allmänna att erhålla korrekta uppgifter från de uppgiftsskyldiga utan att behöva lägga ner en massa tid och resurser på utredning. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Karlsson, Rebecca LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
The rules about discharge from liability when adjusting incorrect information on own initiative
course
JURM02 20162
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
skatterätt, rättsvetenskap, social and welfare law, law
language
Swedish
id
8896597
date added to LUP
2017-01-18 12:34:08
date last changed
2017-01-18 12:34:08
@misc{8896597,
  abstract     = {In cases where inaccurate information has been sent to tax authorities, the responsible person is risking surcharge or in worse cases making herself guilty of tax offence. A basic rule implies that a surcharge means an additional 40 % to the normal taxes and when it comes to cases of tax offence, the ordinary penalties of criminal law, fines and prison, are practiced. The highest prison sentence for tax offence is six years and the prescription time for bigger cases are ten years. In the tax procedure act (2011:1244) and in the tax offence law (1971:69) there is however a rule that makes it possible for a person to be free from such responsibility.
If the responsible person puts the wrong information straight on her own initiative before there is a reason to suppose that the tax authorities become aware of the shortcomings, she is free from responsibility. This is a fact even though the conditions for tax offence or surcharge are registered. This rule makes it possible to retreat from an already accomplished crime and avoid surcharge. The fact that the people who have withheld big amounts of tax money, through a fairly simple move can go free from responsibility for their shortcomings, has stirred up a great debate and made people get a sense of injustice. The essay aims at examining the rule of correction to find out what motivates that our legal system provides such a possibility of making yourself free from responsibility. Furthermore the essay aims at investigating under what circumstances a correction is possible or not possible with discharge from liability as a result.
By means of laws and preworks the law court has been given great opportunities to settle in what way the rules shall be practiced. In the custom you can learn that the interpretation of the law court not always matches the wording of the laws. What most of the times have been conclusive is that an external circumstance have had such a connection to the illegitimate information that the responsible person ought to suspect that the information will be noticed by the tax authorities. A correction that has been made in a situation like that, can not lead to discharge from liability. Whom the specific external circumstances are, that the law court evaluates of having connection to the illegitimate information, have varied. Historically, the rules' primary function appear to have been enforcing correct information. This ought to be the primary guideline when practicing the rules. Through the years, considerable numbers of resources have been used to prevent tax avoidance, which is a consequence of the taxes being a fundamental basic principle for the public activity.
For a correction to have the effect of discharging a person from liability, the restrictions set by the custom have to be taken into consideration. The idea is that the rules should be practiced only when it is likely that the the person responsible actually feels regret or have discovered a flaw and by that wants to do the right thing. One should not be able to practice the rule when an external circumstance has increased the risk of the illegitimate information being discovered. Hence the responsible person should not be able to prepare a correction and send it in only when she risks being revealed. However, the legislator means that the rules ought to be practiced generously, which can influence the preventive effect the system built up. The correction function is considered to be an approachable way for the tax authorities to obtain correct information from the ones responsible without having to put in a lot of time and resources investigating.},
  author       = {Karlsson, Rebecca},
  keyword      = {skatterätt,rättsvetenskap,social and welfare law,law},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Reglerna om ansvarsfrihet vid rättelse av oriktig uppgift på eget initiativ},
  year         = {2016},
}