Lex retro non agit Aule in Tax Law - Comments Evoked by the Case K 4/19

The rule saying that the law has no retroactive force (lex retro non agit) is of particular importance in tax law. Generally, it is recognized as a measure protecting taxpayers’ rights. Local government units evoked this rule in the case K 4/19 examined by the Constitutional Tribunal. From this point of view, we deal with the situation that is both practically and theoretically significant. The legislator used retroactive force of law to amend provisions imposing a real estate tax on wind farms, which decreased taxpayers’ liabilities but, at the same time, municipal own income. A purpose of the study is to present the above-mentioned issue and answer the question whether the above quoted rule was actually violated. The analysis of its factual and legal aspects apparently entails that it did occur. To prove it, the author of the study has mainly used a formal-dogmatic research method based on the analysis of the Constitutional Tribunal case law and the subject literature.

The Premise of Impoverishment in Tax Overpayment vs. Pro-constitutional Interpretation – Reflections Against the Background of the Resolution of the Supreme Administrative Court, file ref. no. I GPS 1/11

This article undertakes an analysis of the correctness of the pro-constitutional interpretation presented in the resolution of the Supreme Administrative Court of June 22, 2011, file ref. no. I GPS 1/11. In the resolution in question, the Supreme Administrative Court, citing constitutional norms, came to the conviction that the right to a tax overpayment is limited by the premise of the taxpayer’s impoverishment. The considerations made therein were met with much criticism from representatives of the literature. And for many years there was also a dispute over the scope of being bound by it, which indirectly may also indicate the negative attitude of the judicature as to the interpretation contained therein. Within the scope of the article, I will express my position as to the correctness of this type of interpretation provided by the Supreme Administrative Court.