نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسنده
استادیار، گروه حقوق خصوصی موسسه عالی آموزش و پژوهش مدیریت و برنامهریزی، تهران، ایران.
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسنده [English]
Abstract
According to Article 198 of the Direct Taxes Act, in commercial companies, company managers, collectively or individually, are jointly and severally responsible to the company for paying the company's income tax that has been final during their management. Based on the principle of the independence of the legal personality of the managers from the company, the debt of the company can only be claimed from the company itself, as a result, claiming the company's tax debt from the managers is against the aforementioned legal principle. On the other hand, according to the principle of personal tax responsibility, tax can only be claimed from the taxpayer, i.e. the company. Article 198 is written in such a way that the joint and several liability of directors is general, absolute, and as a result includes all members of the board of directors, including the signatory directors and others, as well as those who are faulty or not faulty of non-payment of taxes. Since the ruling on the personal responsibility of managers for company tax is against the principles governing corporate law, obligation law, and tax law, as well as restricting the individual rights of board members and the CEO of the company, the legal analysis of this issue in the framework of the concepts and principles of the legal system in related fields can reveal new angles about the basics of managers' responsibility for corporate taxes and appropriate legal policy in this matter. The issue that can be raised is whether the provision of Article 198 of the Act is justified from a legal point of view or not. Is it justifiable to impose personal responsibility on managers for company taxes, based on the principles of tax law, obligation law,
corporate law, and other related legal fields? What is the ideal legal system for the legal regulation of managers' responsibility for corporate taxes? The theoretical framework of the research is based on several principles and accepted in related legal fields, including the principle of independence of the legal personality of managers from the company, the principle of individuality of tax, the principle of individuality of responsibility, the principle of the ability to pay taxes, the principle of tax justice, the principle of ease of tax collection, The principle of guaranteeing public rights, the moral principle of responsibility, and other relevant principles, and a balance between these principles are organized. The sources of this research are derived from legal principles and principles in related fields, fundamental principles, and the subject of legal consensus, including justice and individual rights, relevant laws and regulations, as well as relevant and useful findings in comparative law. The research method in this article is comparative and the validation of Article 198 of the Act is analyzed, reasoned, and deduced based on the criteria derived from certain legal principles in related legal fields including tax law, corporate law, public law, and civil liability law. This article tries to prove the hypothesis with legal analysis that the imposition of such responsibility is unjustified and incompatible with the foundations, principles, and integrity of the legal system. Based on the research conducted in this article, the joint and several liability of managers for company tax, which is very strict against managers to facilitate tax collection and deal with any possibility of tax abuse, regardless of the manager's role, authority, and ability to not pay tax. The imposed tax is contrary to the desired legal and tax system and is a clear violation of individual rights and the extensive and unjustified use of public law tools. The main objection is that Article 198 sacrifices the role of fairness, justice, individual rights and freedoms, the moral aspects of the legal system, and the integrity of the legal system without providing the necessary justifications and bases for the expediency of providing tax revenue for the government. From the point of view of this research, the ideal legal system for defining the responsibility of managers for corporate taxes is the civil liability system, which uses legal and acceptable elements and takes into account effective factors such as the manager's obligation to pay the company tax, the manager's fault in paying the tax, The role and authority of the manager in paying taxes, the presence or absence of sufficient resources in the company to pay taxes and other responsibility factors, to establish a fair and efficient system.
کلیدواژهها [English]
منابع
الف) فارسی
ب) خارجی
13. Aerik F., D. (2008). Personal Liability For Corporate Fault In The United States. Directors ’ Personal Liability For Corporate Fault : A Comparative Analysis. 301-330, Helen Anderson Ed., Kluwer International, 1163/221125907x00245.
14. Andenas, M. (2009) European Comparative Company Law. Cambridge University Press.
15. Andenas, M., & Wooldridge, F. (2009). European Comparative Law. Cambridge University Press, New York.
16. Anderson, H. (2008). Directors Persona Liability For Corporate Fault A Comparative Analysis. Wolters Kluwer.
17. Cahn, A., & Donald, D. C. (2010). Comparative Company Law. Cambridge University Press, New York.
18. CMS (2005). Duties And Responsibilities Of Directors In Europe.
19. Cunningham, N. B,, & Repetti, J. R (2004). Textualism And Tax Shelter. Boston College Law School Research Paper No. 28, Virginia Law Review, 24(1), https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/lsfp/22/, 2022/04/03.
20. Davies, P. (2013). Corporate Boards In Law And Practice. Oxford University Press, New York.
21. Dean, J. D. (2003). Company Law And The Stockholder Society. Directing Public Companies Routledge Cavendish.
22. Dine, J. (2001). Company Law, Fourth Edition, Macmillan Press Ltd,
23. Friese, A., P.Link, S., & Mayer, S. (2006).Taxation and Corporate Governance,Max Planck Institute for Intellectuall Property. Competition and Tax Law. Available at https://ssrn.com/abstract=877900.
24. G20/OECD, (2015). Principles Of Corporate Governance.
25. Gerding,Erik F. (2008). Directors’ Personal Liability For Corporate Fault In The United States., University Of Colorado Law School. 2022/06/20
26. Harris, Peter And Oliver, David (2010). International Commercial Tax, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
27. Ibrahim, D. M. (2008). ndividual Or Collective Liability For Corporate Directors?. Iowa Law Review, 93, 929, 2008, Arizona Legal Studies Discussion, 06-25, Available At SSRN: Https://Ssrn.Com/Abstract=918119,2022/06/20.
28. Lindsay, I. (2018). The Ethics Of Tax Policy. Ira K. Lindsay, In Annabelle Lever & Andrei Poama (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook Of Ethics And Public Policy, (Abingdon Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge, Available At SSRN,5-17, Https://Ssrn.Com/Abstract=3389440, 2022/08/20.
29. Renata, P., & Emina, J. (2014). Principle Of Fairness In Regard To Personal Income Tax. Interdisciplinary Management Research, Josip Juraj Strossmayer University Of Osijek, Faculty Of Economics, Croatia, 10, 821-828, https://ideas.repec.org/a/osi/journl/v10y2014p821-828.html, 2022/03/05.
30. Ridley, A. (2011). Key Facts Of Company Law, Routledge.
31. Robinson, P. H. (2017). Strict Liability's Criminogenic Effect, Criminal Law And Philosophyl. Forthcoming, U Of Penn Law School, Public Law Research, 5-17, Available At SSRN, papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2894455, 2022/08/20.
32. Schon,W. (2008). Tax And Corporate Governance, Springer, Munich.
33. Siems, M., & Carbelli, D. (2013). Comparative Company Law. Hart Publishing.B.
34. Tan, C. H., Wang, J., & Hofmann, C. (2018) . Piercing The Corporate Veil: Historical, Theoretical And Comparative Perspectives. Berkeley Business Law Journal, 140-204, papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3254130, 2022/03/07.
35.Tiley, J., & Loutzenhiser, G. (2012). Revenue Law. Oxford. Hart Publishing Ltd.
36.Tomasic, R. (2017). Routledge Handbook Of Corporate Law. Routledge, New York.
)