Reglerna om ansvarsfrihet vid rättelse av oriktig uppgift på eget initiativ

Sammanfattning: In cases where inaccurate information has been sent to tax authorities, the responsible person is risking surcharge or in worse cases making herself guilty of tax offence. A basic rule implies that a surcharge means an additional 40 % to the normal taxes and when it comes to cases of tax offence, the ordinary penalties of criminal law, fines and prison, are practiced. The highest prison sentence for tax offence is six years and the prescription time for bigger cases are ten years. In the tax procedure act (2011:1244) and in the tax offence law (1971:69) there is however a rule that makes it possible for a person to be free from such responsibility. If the responsible person puts the wrong information straight on her own initiative before there is a reason to suppose that the tax authorities become aware of the shortcomings, she is free from responsibility. This is a fact even though the conditions for tax offence or surcharge are registered. This rule makes it possible to retreat from an already accomplished crime and avoid surcharge. The fact that the people who have withheld big amounts of tax money, through a fairly simple move can go free from responsibility for their shortcomings, has stirred up a great debate and made people get a sense of injustice. The essay aims at examining the rule of correction to find out what motivates that our legal system provides such a possibility of making yourself free from responsibility. Furthermore the essay aims at investigating under what circumstances a correction is possible or not possible with discharge from liability as a result. By means of laws and preworks the law court has been given great opportunities to settle in what way the rules shall be practiced. In the custom you can learn that the interpretation of the law court not always matches the wording of the laws. What most of the times have been conclusive is that an external circumstance have had such a connection to the illegitimate information that the responsible person ought to suspect that the information will be noticed by the tax authorities. A correction that has been made in a situation like that, can not lead to discharge from liability. Whom the specific external circumstances are, that the law court evaluates of having connection to the illegitimate information, have varied. Historically, the rules' primary function appear to have been enforcing correct information. This ought to be the primary guideline when practicing the rules. Through the years, considerable numbers of resources have been used to prevent tax avoidance, which is a consequence of the taxes being a fundamental basic principle for the public activity. For a correction to have the effect of discharging a person from liability, the restrictions set by the custom have to be taken into consideration. The idea is that the rules should be practiced only when it is likely that the the person responsible actually feels regret or have discovered a flaw and by that wants to do the right thing. One should not be able to practice the rule when an external circumstance has increased the risk of the illegitimate information being discovered. Hence the responsible person should not be able to prepare a correction and send it in only when she risks being revealed. However, the legislator means that the rules ought to be practiced generously, which can influence the preventive effect the system built up. The correction function is considered to be an approachable way for the tax authorities to obtain correct information from the ones responsible without having to put in a lot of time and resources investigating.