Dubbelprövningsförbudet avseende skattetillägg och skattebrott : - en utredning av införandet av regeringens förslag gällande en spärreglering samt ett samlat sanktionsförfarande ur ett rättssäkerhetsperspektiv

Sammanfattning: A tax penalty is an administrative penalty and is levied when the tax obligated provides false information for the guidance of their own taxation. Further can the taxpayer also be punished for tax evasion for the same false reporting. However, this is contrary to the European Convention that we should not be tried or punished twice for the same crime. The Supreme Court has through practice from 2013 ruled that the right not to be punished twice for the same offense shall include the system in force concerning tax and tax offenses. The Supreme Court has by this judgment determined that the system of penalty and tax evasion is not compatible with the dual test ban.In the light of the judgment the Government submitted in November 2014 a draft to the council regarding double test ban regarding penalty and tax evasion. The reason of the proposal was that the system of dual procedures was contrary to Article 50 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 4 of the European Convention 7th Additional Protocol. The Government propose to establish a locking control which means that prosecutor can not bring charges if the Swedish tax authority has made a decision regarding a tax on the same matter. Further means that the Swedish tax authority can not decide on tax where the prosecutor has charged or taken other measures. To strengthen legal security further the Government proposes to introduce a regulation which sanctions procedure is collected in a court, which means that the court may in a tax evasion process decide on penalties at the request of prosecutors. The authors' assessment of the proposal is that it can be considered to be deficient since a more part-output investigation should be carried out. It is questioned from a law-perspective whether the proposal should be put forward for legislation due to the uncertainty of the proposal’s effect in other areas of law.