Rättssäkerhet och anstånd med betalning av skatt : En analys av 17 kap. 2 § p. 2-3 Skattebetalningslagen ur ett rättssäkerhetsperspektiv

Sammanfattning: The aim of this thesis is to investigate whether legal rights are upheld when wording and applying the postponement of payment of tax regulations of chapter 17 section 2 p. 2-3 of the payment of Tax Act. We also investigate how the wording of the regulations relate to the requirement of legal security. It has been questioned if the regulations concerning postponement of payment of tax are compatible with the requirement of legal security. Of course does not a taxpayer want to pay tax that he or she consider incorrect, and that has not been under trial by an impartial authority. If the request for postponement of payment of tax is rejected, the consequences for the taxpayer can lead to huge financial losses. The worse scenario for the taxpayer is if he or she goes bankrupt due to the rejected request. The tax assessment regulations forming the basis for the postponement of payment of tax regulations are considered disputable, which has brought the matter to the fore. When ap-plying for reassessment or making an appeal, the question arises whether the tax in process should be submitted before the matter has been settled. The regulations of chapter 23 sec-tion 7 of the payment of Tax Act stipulate that the obligation to submit taxes remains re-gardless of its disputability. The only way the taxpayer can avoid having to submit taxes be-forehand is to apply for postponement of payment of the tax. When the application for postponement of payment of tax has reached the Tax Authority it is treated separately from the underlying tax assessment matter. However, the outcome of the postponement of payment of tax matter depends on the prerequisites on which the tax assessment is based. This thesis is based on the regulations of chapter 17 section 2 p. 2-3 of the payment of Tax Act. The section stipulates that postponement of payment of tax may be granted in matters where the outcome of an ongoing tax assessment process may be uncertain, or where it may lead to considerable damage or else appear unreasonable to submit taxes. The founda-tions for judgment are very vaguely worded, which creates room for subjective interpreta-tions, and moreover, it means that judicial authorities must fill up the prerequisites with their judgments. Unclear bases for judgment limit taxpayers’ demands for predictable taxa-tion, and the risk both local tax offices and the Tax Authority and administrative courts make different assessments is great. When the Tax Authority and the administrative courts treat claims for postponement of payment of tax, legal rights must always be considered. There are often deficiencies in the handling of the matters, which impair the taxpayers’ legal rights. The matters should be suf-ficiently investigated and the decisions motivated in a satisfactory manner. Moreover, the handling of claims for postponement of payment of tax should be objective, and decisions made with consideration to the consequences of the ruling. As things are at present, it takes a considerable amount of time for the courts to investigate the underlying tax assessment, which means the consequences of not being granted a post-ponement of payment of tax are so much the graver. This also means that the taxpayer is forced to live a long time in financial and psychological uncertainty. One suggestion of how to come to terms with this problem is to increase specialization in the administrative courts. The lack of clearly worded legal texts, preparatory work and practice leads to predictability being impaired for the individual and create difficulties for the Tax Authority and the ad-ministrative courts. From a legal rights perspective, more generous regulations regarding postponement of payment of tax should be introduced. One suggestion is to turn the main regulation of chapter 23 section 7 of the payment of Tax Act around. Postponement of payment of tax would then be granted unless particular reasons for its denial exist. An al-ternative to this suggestion may be to leave the main regulation in its current wording and have the exception regulations of chapter 17 section 2 of the payment of Tax Act grant postponement of payment of tax, unless particular reasons hindering this exist. In such a case of denying postponement of payment of tax the reasons for denial should be speci-fied.