FAQ

Issue 17 (1)/ 2020

2020 Next

Publication date: 31.03.2020

Licence: CC BY-NC-ND  licence icon

Editorial team

Editor-in-Chief Jolanta Gliniecka

Issue content

Richard Bartes

Financial Law Review, Issue 17 (1)/ 2020, 2020, pp. 1-11

https://doi.org/10.4467/22996834FLR.20.001.12042
The article is dealing with guarantees of legality and with selected legal aspects of the legal liability in subsidy law. The subsidy law is a constituent of the fiscal part of the Czech financial law. The importance of the subsidy law is intensified by the fact that the subject of the subsidy law is the redistribution of public money. In fact, public money is associated with the public interest and has to be therefore protected from a misusing and from a wasting. Such protection consists of legal instruments, which are of a preventive or punitive nature. These legal instruments are applied in subsidy legal relationships between a subsidy recipient and a subsidy grantor in case of violation of financial (subsidy) norms, which shall give rise to the legal liability. In some cases the sanction is applied by the subsidy grantor, sometimes by the tax administration. The main aim of the article is to confirm or disprove the hypothesis that sanctions in the subsidy law are the same for cases when a subsidy is provided from state funds and for cases when a subsidy is provided from territorial funds. The partial aim of the paper is to analyse when the subsidy grantor and the tax administration would apply the sanction and to present particular guarantees of legality in the subsidy law. The research methods used in the article are analysis and synthesis, description and comparative methods.
Read more Next

Romana Buzková

Financial Law Review, Issue 17 (1)/ 2020, 2020, pp. 12-23

https://doi.org/10.4467/22996834FLR.20.002.12043
This contribution deals with grant procedures in the Czech Republic, in particular with grants from the European Structural and Investment Funds. The main aim of the article is to examine possible legal remedies that can be used by grant applicants in case of adverse decisions. There is no separate legal act dealing solely with grant procedures in the Czech Republic. Therefore, this contribution analyses the relation between Act No. 218/2000 Coll., Budgetary Rules and Act No. 500/2004 Coll., Code of Administrative Procedure, with an emphasis on the amendment to Budgetary Rules which came into effect on 1st January 2018 and brought significant changes to rules governing the grant procedures. This article does not deal with the control of projects implementation nor remedies against sanctions for the breach of budgetary discipline. The methods of description, analysis, comparison and synthesis are used for writing this contribution.
Read more Next

Rita Gyurita

Financial Law Review, Issue 17 (1)/ 2020, 2020, pp. 24-51

https://doi.org/10.4467/22996834FLR.20.003.12044

This study exhibits the separation of the control of the legality of local governments from the supervision of the legality of local governments, separation of the financial and economic audit from the supervision of legality, and classification and characterization of the supervisory instruments. Legality control was the form of the control of local governments within the public administrative organization from 1990 to 2011. The control implemented within the previous public administrative organization had a less severe influence than today’s supervision. The public administration organ (government office) exercising the power of legality review had fewer instruments, and did not have instruments allowing any direct intervention. As regards its subjects, the financial and economic audit examines the responsible management of a) public funds and b) State and the local government assets. This audit is not part of the supervision of legality, and therefore its subjects differ from those of the supervision of legality. The hypothesis of the study is that the instruments of the supervision of legality ensure the lawful operation of local governments and objective legal protection. Descriptive analysis, practical analysis and the comparative method are typical research methods.

Read more Next

Ladislav Hrabčák, Adrián Popovič

Financial Law Review, Issue 17 (1)/ 2020, 2020, pp. 52-69

https://doi.org/10.4467/22996834FLR.20.004.12045
The article deals with some of the consequences of the digital economy in general. The authors focus on digital services, specifically the tax law aspects of digital services. Some states' tax systems already regulate certain partial issues of the digital economy, such as taxation of virtual currencies or taxation of digital platforms, but now legislators are focusing on taxation of digital services. This paper highlights ongoing initiatives at international and national level to provide the reader with a relatively comprehensive view of the current (legal) situation. “Digital giants” are already taxed in some countries, and therefore it is possible to assess how effective some legislation is, even if it has been too short to evaluate it objectively.
Read more Next

Andrej Choma, Matej Kačaljak, Peter Rakovský

Financial Law Review, Issue 17 (1)/ 2020, 2020, pp. 70-85

https://doi.org/10.4467/22996834FLR.20.005.12046
This contribution deals with the position of the Slovak Republic in relation to safe harbours in transfer pricing from de lege lata perspective and from the perspective of existing application practice of tax authorities in Slovakia. The main aim of the contribution is to confirm or disprove the hypothesis that the existing safe harbour framework in the Slovak Republic is in line with the OECD recommendations in the Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations. Methods of analysis and synthesis and of comparative legal method were employed. The results indicate that though de lege lata the Slovak law contains certain features which might be described as safe harbours, essentially relieving certain taxpayers from the obligation to have contemporaneous transfer pricing documentation, a safe harbour stricto sensu was not identified. However, in the practice of Slovak tax authorities there seem to be routinely accepted safe harbours with respect to low value-adding intra group services. Moreover, there seems to be an excessive reliance on transactional net margin method which in practice may lead to establishment of a de facto safe harbour. The authors argue that such practice seems to be in direct contradiction to OECD recommendations, poses a significant risk of becoming a target of safe harbour shopping and should be reconsidered.
Read more Next