Taxation of silos with property tax – gloss to the decision of the Supreme Administrative Court of 17 October 2019, ref. no. II FSK 3126/17

Authors

  • Dominika Bębenek Studentka na Wydziale Prawa i Administracji Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego w Krakowie
  • Nicole Deneka Studentka na Wydziale Prawa i Administracji Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego w Krakowie
  • Weronika Wójcik Studentka na Wydziale Prawa i Administracji Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego w Krakowie

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18778/1509-877X.2020.03.01

Keywords:

property tax, building, structure, tax law, silo

Abstract

The gloss highlights the problem of taxation of construction objects, which despite having all features of a building as defined by property tax law, are qualified as structures by the administrative organs. In a discussed decision, the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) has ruled that for property taxation purposes, a sugar silo should be qualified as a structure, not as a building (in the sense of provision 1a section 1 of Taxes and Local Fees Act). SAC’s decision matches the opinions of the administrative organs and the court of lower instance. SAC’s reasoning is mainly based on a teleological interpretation of provisions of tax law and building law. The court comes to a controversial conclusion and posits the thesis that to qualify a construction object as a building, its functional elements such as purpose, equipment, and the way and possibility of using this object as a whole, should be taken into account. The gloss argues that this kind of interpretation causes the addition of another, non-statutory premise of qualifying construction object as a building. The decision in question constitutes the preservation of relatively consistent administrative courts’ jurisprudence, which the authors mean to criticize. The gloss aims to show that this decision constitutes a repetition of jurisprudence from before the Constitutional Tribunal’s sentence of 13 December 2017, ref. no. SK 48/15 and includes theses inconsistent with its content, as well as with the literal interpretation of provisions – similarly to previous verdicts in analogous cases, released after the Constitutional Tribunal’s sentence.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Morawski W., Wyrok TK z dnia 13 września 2011 r., P 33/09 – potwierdzenie ewolucji orzecznictwa, [w:] Wykładnia i stosowanie prawa podatkowego. Węzłowe problemy, red. B. Brzeziński, Warszawa 2013.
Google Scholar

Staniszewska L., Glosa do wyroku Trybunału Konstytucyjnego z dnia 13 grudnia 2017 r., sygn. SK 48/15, dotyczącego podatków i opłat lokalnych – zasad ustalania podatku od nieruchomości, „Studia Prawa Publicznego” 2018, nr 2(22), https://doi.org/10.14746/spp.2018.2.22.9
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.14746/spp.2018.2.22.9

Tarka A., Wywiad z dr. hab. Sławomirem Presnarowiczem, https://www.rp.pl/Finanse/301169989-Slawomir-Presnarowicz-Trzeba-zmienic-definicje-budowli-w-podatku-od-nieruchomosci.html (dostęp: 6.12.2020).
Google Scholar

Wykładnia i stosowanie prawa podatkowego. Węzłowe problemy, red. B. Brzeziński, Warszawa 2013.
Google Scholar

Zalewski Ł., Budynek czy budowla? Wyrok trybunału nie zakończył sporów, https://podatki.gazetaprawna.pl/artykuly/1456901,budynek-budowla-podatek-2020-trybunal-konstytucyjny.html (dostęp: 6.12.2020).
Google Scholar

Published

2020-09-30

How to Cite

Bębenek, D., Deneka, N., & Wójcik, W. (2020). Taxation of silos with property tax – gloss to the decision of the Supreme Administrative Court of 17 October 2019, ref. no. II FSK 3126/17. Tax Law Quarterly, (3), 9–19. https://doi.org/10.18778/1509-877X.2020.03.01

Issue

Section

Articles

PlumX metrics

Similar Articles

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.