Suchergebnisse

This paper presents the major characteristics of the Brazilian tax system, after underlining the modifications it went through since 1988, when the country adopted a new and democratic Constitution. One important feature is the marked incidence of indirect consumer and production taxes (49% of all tax revenues) in place of direct taxes on income, inheritance, and capital gains. This imbalance between indirect and direct taxes explains, in large part, the elevated regressivity of the Brazilian tax system, which both expresses and reproduces the profound inequalities that characterize Brazilian society.

Beyond any doubt, the division of tax charges should be just and, thus, the tax legislation, similarly as the tax system, should be established so as to meet the standard of justice. However, the ethic standard of justice causes significant complications in the legislative practice. These mainly result from the fact that there is no confidence in the idea of just taxation. The reasons why the principle of just taxation cannot be trusted are different for the legislator and different for the taxpayer. The legislator's distrust stems, above all, from fear that it might not be possible to connect the just taxation with effectiveness in fulfilling the income function. In the legislative practice a strong wrong belief continues to be shared that the just taxation amounts to the reducing of tax proceeds. Whereas the fear of the taxpayers that the system of tax charges applies to results from their awareness which has been developed and enhanced long enough to show that the legislator, while referring to the concept of justice, too often carries out reforms that contradict it. The tax justice - as an argument underlying the structure of the tax system - is employed much too frequently to mask the fiscal interest of the State, that is the effective fulfillment of the income function. What is important just as well is the fact that the ethical postulate of just taxation can provide the legislator with grounds to formulate various courses of action and, as a result, various tax law solutions. There is a variety of tax rules that can be deemed to incorporate the postulate of justice [1]. However, a more complicated question arises whether the legislator can put the just taxation into practice by referring to the idea of justice. This has always raised doubts.

Beyond any doubt, the division of tax charges should be just and, thus, the tax legislation, similarly as the tax system, should be established so as to meet the standard of justice. However, the ethic standard of justice causes significant complications in the legislative practice. These mainly result from the fact that there is no confidence in the idea of just taxation. The reasons why the principle of just taxation cannot be trusted are different for the legislator and different for the taxpayer. The legislator's distrust stems, above all, from fear that it might not be possible to connect the just taxation with effectiveness in fulfilling the income function. In the legislative practice a strong wrong belief continues to be shared that the just taxation amounts to the reducing of tax proceeds. Whereas the fear of the taxpayers that the system of tax charges applies to results from their awareness which has been developed and enhanced long enough to show that the legislator, while referring to the concept of justice, too often carries out reforms that contradict it. The tax justice - as an argument underlying the structure of the tax system - is employed much too frequently to mask the fiscal interest of the State, that is the effective fulfillment of the income function. What is important just as well is the fact that the ethical postulate of just taxation can provide the legislator with grounds to formulate various courses of action and, as a result, various tax law solutions. There is a variety of tax rules that can be deemed to incorporate the postulate of justice [1]. However, a more complicated question arises whether the legislator can put the just taxation into practice by referring to the idea of justice. This has always raised doubts.

Beyond any doubt, the division of tax charges should be just and, thus, the tax legislation, similarly as the tax system, should be established so as to meet the standard of justice. However, the ethic standard of justice causes significant complications in the legislative practice. These mainly result from the fact that there is no confidence in the idea of just taxation. The reasons why the principle of just taxation cannot be trusted are different for the legislator and different for the taxpayer. The legislator's distrust stems, above all, from fear that it might not be possible to connect the just taxation with effectiveness in fulfilling the income function. In the legislative practice a strong wrong belief continues to be shared that the just taxation amounts to the reducing of tax proceeds. Whereas the fear of the taxpayers that the system of tax charges applies to results from their awareness which has been developed and enhanced long enough to show that the legislator, while referring to the concept of justice, too often carries out reforms that contradict it. The tax justice - as an argument underlying the structure of the tax system - is employed much too frequently to mask the fiscal interest of the State, that is the effective fulfillment of the income function. What is important just as well is the fact that the ethical postulate of just taxation can provide the legislator with grounds to formulate various courses of action and, as a result, various tax law solutions. There is a variety of tax rules that can be deemed to incorporate the postulate of justice [1]. However, a more complicated question arises whether the legislator can put the just taxation into practice by referring to the idea of justice. This has always raised doubts. ; Straipsnyje nagrinėjami mokesčių naštos paskirstymo teisingumo ir mokesčių sistemos teisingumo klausimai, taip pat mokestinių teisinių santykių subjektų tikėjimo teisingo apmokestinimo idėja aspektai, iš jų kylanti praktinė problema, ar remdamasis teisingumo idėja įstatymų leidėjas gali praktiškai įgyvendinti teisingo apmokestinimo principą. Klausimas, ar mokesčių sistemoje išties laikomasi teisingo apmokestinimo principo, gali būti paprastai įvardijamas kaip problema, ar apmokestinimo ribos priimtinos ekonominiu, teisiniu ir moraliniu aspektu. Tokiu būdu atskleidžiamas konflikto tarp valstybės ir mokesčių mokėtojų pagrindas. Nagrinėjant teisingumo mokesčių srityje vykdymo klausimą pažymimi nesutarimai tarp mokesčių teorijos gynėjų ir viešosios valdžios, kuri sprendžia mokesčių nustatymo klausimus. Viešoji valdžia pernelyg dažnai mokesčių teorijos funkcijas ir reikšmę suvokia taip, tarsi jomis būtų nustatomos visa apimančios elgesio taisyklės, tiesiogiai taikomos teisėkūros praktikoje. Tačiau su teisingu apmokestinimu susijusios teorinės koncepcijos valdžiai turi reikšmės tik tada, kai mokslinių tezių įtvirtinimas dera su jomis siūlomų rekomendacijų taikymo teisėkūros praktikoje rezultatais. Deja, viešoji valdžia dažnai pamiršta, kad teorinių koncepcijų ir prielaidų taikymas ad hoc nutinka labai retai, ir paprastai jo tenka palaukti. Nors "gyventi reikia laiko" (tai ypač taikoma ekonominei ir socialinei sritims), politikai, nustatydami mokesčių sistemos turinį, pobūdį ir formą, labai skuba. Teigiama, kad teisingo apmokestinimo principas gali būti laikomas pradiniu praktinės mokesčių teisės teorijos formulavimo tašku. Tai reiškia, kad taikyti etines apmokestinimo taisykles mokesčių sistemoje būtų privaloma. To galima pasiekti atsižvelgus į visus aspektus, pirmiausia - į prieštaras, interesų konfliktus.

"April 1995." ; "A joint project of Citizens for Tax Justice & the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy." ; Includes bibliographical references. ; Mode of access: Internet.