The Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) is a theory from the field of psychology that was developed by Icek Ajzen in 1985 in order to predict and change human behavior. The theory works with three basic inputs concerning the studied behavior of the person. These then lead to an intention to behave in a certain way. Over the years the theory has been successfully applied to research in various fields.
By using the method of systematic review, deduction, induction and synthesis, the article looks into the use of the TPB research model in connection with tax law and economics.
One of the areas where tax law and economics meet is taxes. Hence the aim of the article is to confirm or disapprove the hypothesis that firstly TPB has been used in connection with taxes over the last ten years. If this hypothesis is confirmed then it is the aim to determine in which areas it has been applied. Secondly to confirm or disapprove the hypothesis that TPB has been used in connection with taxes in all seven world regions as divided by the World Bank. If that hypothesis is correct the aim is to determine how it has been applied in the Czech Republic and with what results.

JEL Classification: K34

This contribution deals with fraudulent schemes in the financial market. The main aim of the contribution is to provide main identifying features of fraudulent practices that prove to be a financial pyramid. The author summarizes in one place numerous features that indicate the financial pyramid (Ponzi scheme), especially operating on the financial or capital market. He concludes, the state of play of legislation regarding the features is insufficient. The hypothesis to confirm or disprove is there is no uniform legal provision covering all features of the pyramid scheme in Slovakia, the relevant legislation is limited to the prohibition of certain practices, which a priori may not constitute a pyramid scheme.

Recently, digitalization has been a frequently used word in various economic fields. We have been able to realize this lately mainly due to the problematic situation brought by the COVID-19 pandemic. People could not personally visit public authorities, banks, the post offices or other institutions and in many cases, it was possible for them to manage their necessary matters. It is quite clear, that Czech public authorities are not 100 % ready to be able to function fully online. However, the Czech Republic is not lax about this and it is preparing further steps to achieve online functioning. The selected current steps of the Czech Republic will be presented in this article. The hypothesis set in the article is that the current status of digitalization of administration in Czech Republic is currently insufficient.

This contribution deals with the implementation of Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 on Alternative Investment Fund Managers and amending Directives 2003/41/EC and 2009/65/EC and Regulations (EC) No 1060/2009 and (EU) No 1095/2010 into Czech legal system. The main aim of the contribution is to confirm or disprove the hypothesis that entity in Section 15 of Act no. 240/2013 Coll, on Investment Companies and Investment Funds, as amended, is an alternative fund according to the Directive 2011/61/EU and that Directive 2011/61/EU was not transposed in Czech Republic properly. Author used to confirm or disprove above mentioned hypothesis scientific methods, especially comparison, induction and deduction. This contribution also looks at the Directive 2011/61/EU evaluation of its effectiveness and possible development of regulation in this area.

The present article deals with one of the phenomena of the Industrial (Digital) revolution 4.0, which is digital currency in broader sense, respectively virtual currencies, as some authors refer to them. Despite the fact that this phenomenon is not such a novelty in society, it has demanded the focus of legal science only in recent years and the discussion has not subsided, it can be stated that it is only in the beginning. Along with digital currency in broader sense, there are several issues, such as the correctness of their naming, their legal status and, as far as the area of tax law is concerned, these are also questions of the manner and possibilities of taxing transactions with them. Authors set as a goal of this article to verify the following hypotheses:

- the naming of digital currency in broader sense as a currency is incorrect given the existing knowledge of financial law science.

- the legal regulation of digital currency in broader sense in selected Member States of the European Union is not sufficient.

To verifying the above hypotheses, the authors used several methods of writing scientific works, but especially analysis, synthesis, the method of comparison and the historical method, which the authors used in combination with each other.

The purpose of this text is to present an overview of the evolution of digital communication in tax law and highlight major changes which recently occurred in the process of digitalization regarding the communication between a tax administrator and taxpayers when submitting a tax document. The first part of the article will point out leading elements of digital submissions and provide theoretical and functional perspective on characteristics of electronic communication. The second part of the text aspires to analyse sanctions resulting from breaching rules regarding the mandatory electronic submission of tax documents. This article will then discuss the varieties of sanctions as an outcome of enforcing the tax procedural rules regarding the mandatory electronic document submission.