TFL Vsebine / Revija SIR*IUS

Quality indicators of the work of the tax administration and tax inspectors

Zamisel za raziskavo izvira iz članka, objavljenega v časopisu Delo, z naslovom Milijonska škoda zaradi napačnih odločitev davčnih inšpektorjev. Tam piše, da o škodi, ki nastane zaradi napačnih odločitev inšpektorjev, FURS ne vodi evidence. Zato smo raziskali kazalnike kakovosti dela v izbranih davčnih upravah v EU-ju. Zanimale so nas posledice oziroma sankcije za davčnega inšpektorja zaradi neustrezne kakovosti dela. Z napačno odmero davka je davčni inšpektor povzročil davčnim zavezancem škodo, za katero se izreka kazen, kot so opomin, denarna kazen, znižanje plačnega razreda, odvzem funkcije in odpust iz službe. Ugotavljamo, da o tej temi ni strokovnih in znanstvenih člankov, razlog pa je nerazkrivanje teh podatkov in nepripravljenost davčnih uprav EU za izpolnjevanje vprašalnikov v raziskavah. Da se dogodek o milijonski škodi ne ponovi, lahko veliko naredi politika. Primer dobre prakse je sprejemanje davčnih zakonov po nizozemskem zgledu. Tam obstaja dolgoletna praksa, da pred sprejemom davčnega zakona davčna uprava preveri oziroma oceni: ali je zakon praktično izvedljiv (ali je zakon mogoče učinkovito izvajati v praksi, glede na razpoložljive vire, postopke in informacijske sisteme); ali so določbe razumljive in uresničljive (dovolj jasne, da jih bodo davčni zavezanci in uradniki pravilno razumeli in uporabljali, ter ali je mogoče nadzirati spoštovanje zakona in sankcionirati kršitve); možne posledice (ali bi zakon povzročil veliko pritožb, nesporazumov ali sporov med davčnimi organi in zavezanci). Po zgledu Nemčije pa bi politika lahko uvedla razlagalni in utemeljitveni sestavni del zakona z interpretativno vlogo, da bi ga sodniki, davčni inšpektorji, uprave in strokovnjaki lahko uporabljali kot pripomoček pri razlagi zakona. Hkrati mora politika zagotoviti, da se davčna pravila ne spreminjajo pogosto ali nepredvidljivo, kar bi davčnim zavezancem omogočalo zanesljivo načrtovanje.

This research was inspired by an article published in the Slovenian daily newspaper Delo, entitled *Millions in Damages Due to Incorrect Decisions of Tax Inspectors*. The article highlighted that the Slovenian Financial Administration (FURS) does not keep records of damages arising from tax inspectors’ incorrect decisions. Against this backdrop, the study investigates performance quality indicators applied by selected Tax Administrations in the EU, with a particular focus on the consequences or sanctions imposed on tax inspectors who fail to meet established quality standards. Incorrect tax assessments can cause significant financial damage to taxpayers, for which inspectors may face disciplinary measures such as a written warning, monetary fines, demotion to a lower pay grade, removal from office, or dismissal from service. The study further observes a notable absence of professional and academic literature on this subject, primarily due to the non-disclosure of relevant data and the unwillingness of tax administrations in EU to participate in a survey-based research. Public policy can play a crucial role in preventing a recurrence of the incidents that resulted in millions of euros in damages. Legislators should adopt a system for enacting tax laws similar to the model used in the Netherlands. There, it has been a long-standing practice that, before a tax law is passed, the tax administration evaluates whether the law is practical and understandable for both citizens and officials. The tax administration assesses: whether the law is practically implementable — that is, whether it can be effectively enforced in practice, given the available resources, procedures, and information systems; whether the provisions are clear and enforceable — meaning that taxpayers and officials can correctly interpret and apply them, and that compliance can be monitored and violations sanctioned; the potential consequences — such as whether the law might generate a large number of complaints, misunderstandings, or disputes between taxpayers and the tax authorities. Following the example of Germany, policymakers should also introduce an interpretative and explanatory component within tax legislation, serving as an official interpretative tool to assist judges, tax inspectors, administrators, and professionals in applying and understanding the law. At the same time, policymakers must ensure that tax regulations are not changed too frequently or unpredictably, allowing taxpayers to plan their activities with a reasonable degree of certainty.