Burden of proof of the tax authority and burden of proof of the taxpayer in dealings with the missing trader

Nevtralnost davka na dodano vrednost je v tem, da omogoča pravico do odbitka vstopnega davka na dodano vrednost. Pravica do odbitka vstopnega DDV je vezana na pogoje, ki jih z zakonom predpisuje slovenska nacionalna zakonodaja in pravo ES. Davčni zavezanec sme praviloma pri izračunu svoje davčne obveznosti odbiti vstopni DDV, ki ga je dolžan ali ga je plačal, če so kumulativno izpolnjeni naslednji pogoji: 1. da se DDV nanaša na dobavo blaga ali storitev od drugega davčnega zavezanca2. da ima davčni zavezanec ustrezen račun3. da gre za uporabo tega blaga ali storitev za namene njegovih obdavčenih transakcij4. da ne gre za goljufijo ali zlorabo sistema DDV, oziroma da davčni zavezanec ni vedel ali moral vedeti, da je bila transakcija, na katero se sklicuje pri utemeljitvi pravice do odbitka, povezana z goljufijo, ki jo je storil izdajatelj računa ali drug gospodarski subjekt višje v dobavni verigi. V Sloveniji temeljijo pravila dokaznega bremena na zakonu. Davčni organ mora dokazati dejstva na podlagi katerih davčna obveznost nastane ali ne nastane oz. se poveča ali zmanjša. Davčni zavezanec pa je dolžan za svoje navedbe ponuditi dokaze in jih tudi predložiti. V praksi se izvaja doktrina, da je dokazno breme na davčnem zavezancu. Po sodbi Mahageben, mora davčni organ, ki nosi breme dokazovanja, dokazati, da je inšpicirani davčni zavezanec (profiter, buffer) vedel oz. bi moral vedeti, da sodeluje v goljufiji davčne utaje. Davčni inšpektorji v svojih postopkih ravnajo po ZDavP-2, ZUP in ZIN, ter nimajo pooblastil za dokazovanje naklepa, kot ga imajo organi pregona za ugotavljanje elementov kaznivih ravnanj po ZKP. Do sodbe Mahageben so bili davčni organi precej uspešnejši pri dokazovanju, kot po izdani sodbi, vendar je razlika predvsem na strani sodišč RS, ki po tej sodbi zahtevajo veliko višji dokazni standard, kot prej. Lahko bi celo rekli, da sodišče pred to sodbo ni zahtevalo dokazovanja o vedenju zavezanca o goljufiji dobavitelja.The neutrality of the value added tax (VAT) allows the right to deduct the input value added tax. The right to deduct the input VAT is linked with the conditions which are prescribed by the Slovenian national law and European law as well. Generally, the taxpayer in their calculation of their tax liability could deduct the input VAT which is obliged or paid if the following cumulative conditions are met. Firstly, the VAT shall be related to the supply of goods or services from another taxable person. Secondly, the taxpayer has the appropriate bank account. Thirdly, the use of the goods or services shall be used for the purposes of its taxable transactions. Finally, the transactions shall not be connected with the tax fraud or abuse of the VAT system. That means that the taxpayer did not know or should have known that the transaction related to the justify of the right of deduction is not connected to the tax fraud which is committed by the issuer of the invoice or other economic operator in the supply chain. In Slovenia, the burden of proof is based on the law. The tax authority shall prove the facts on which the tax liability arises, does not arise, increases or decreases, respectively. Taxpayer is obliged to offer their arguments and submit the evidence. In practice, it carries out the doctrine that the burden of proof bears on the taxpayer. Following the judgment of Mahageben, the tax authority which bears the burden of proof has to demonstrate that the inspected taxpayer (profiter, buffer) knew or should know that participates itself in the fraud of tax evasion. In Slovenia, the tax inspectors in their procedures comply with the Tax Procedure Act, the Administrative Procedure Act and the Inspection Act, and they are not authorized to prove the intent like the law enforcement authorities which are focused to determine the elements of the offense according to the Criminal Procedure Act. Until the judgment of Mahageben,the tax authorities were quite successful in demonstrating the proofs as the judgment was issued, but the difference is mainly on the side of the courts of the Republic of Slovenia which after this judgement require much higher standard of the burden of proof than before. We could even say that the court before this judgment does not require any proof of the taxpayer\u27s knowledge about the tax fraud of the supplier