The Principle of Good Governance concerning Tax Law
Gamze GümüşkayaGood governance does not have a general definition or a specific content. This concept is interpreted by different disciplines, different institutions on international and national platforms. From a legal perspective, the concept of governance has a close connection with the basic principles of the democratic state of law and human rights. However, the “good governance principle” or “the right to good governance” has not found a place in universal legal documents. In this regard, this principle is not regulated in the European Convention on Human Rights and its additional protocols. On the other hand, the European Court of Human Rights and Turkish Constitutional Court apply this principle concerning the individual application reviews. In these related judgments, the tax administration’s passive attitude and failure to act in a timely and consistent manner were found to be contrary to the principle of good governance. In its judgment regarding the individual application of Reis Automotive Company, published in the Official Gazette, dated 07.03.2018 and numbered 30353, Turkish Constitutional Court clearly stated that the tax administration should act in accordance with the principle of good governance. In this context, it is important to reveal the meaning, scope, and legal basis of the principle of governance in terms of tax law. In the aforementioned judgment, it was decided that the tax administration should take the necessary measures to prevent different treatments among the taxpayers, which are subject to limited tax audits as in the present case of the individual application. In this study, after examining the meaning and applicability of the good governance principle in the field of tax law, the legal amendments regarding the procedure and principles in tax audits are reviewed from the perspective of the good governance principle.
Vergi Hukuku Bakımından İyi Yönetişim İlkesi
Gamze Gümüşkayaİyi yönetişim kavramının genel kabul görmüş bir tanımı ya da sınırları belirli bir içeriği bulunmamakta; bu kavram farklı disiplinlerce, farklı kuruluşlarca ve uluslararası/ulusal düzlemlerde yorumlanmaktadır. Hukuki perspektiften bakıldığında; yönetişim kavramının demokratik hukuk devletinin temel ilkeleri ve insan hakları ile yakın bağlantısının bulunduğu söylenebilecektir. Öte yandan “iyi yönetişim ilkesi” ya da bireyler açısından bakıldığında “iyi yönetişim hakkı”, evrensel belgelerde yer bulamamıştır. Bu kapsamda, İnsan Hakları Avrupa Sözleşmesi ve ek protokollerinde de bu ilke düzenlenmemiştir. Öte yandan İnsan Hakları Avrupa Mahkemesi’nin ve T.C. Anayasa Mahkemesi’nin bireysel başvuru denetiminde iyi yönetişim ilkesinden yararlandığı görülmektedir. Söz konusu kararlarda; vergi idaresinin kendi hatasından kaynaklanan bir aykırılık ortaya çıktıktan sonra hatanın düzeltilmesi ya da zararın giderilmesi bakımından edilgen bir tutum takınması, zamanında ve tutarlı hareket etmemesi iyi yönetişim ilkesine aykırı bulunmuştur. T.C. Anayasa Mahkemesi’nin, 07.03.2018 tarih ve 30353 sayılı Resmî Gazete’de yayımlanan 2015/6728 Başvuru Numaralı Reis Otomotiv Ticaret ve Sanayi A.Ş. tarafından yapılan bireysel başvuruya ilişkin kararında da vergi idaresinin iyi yönetişim ilkesine uygun hareket etmesi gerektiği açıkça belirtilmiştir. Bu itibarla, iyi yönetişim ilkesinin anlamının, kapsamının ve hukuksal dayanaklarının vergi hukuku bakımından tartışılarak ortaya konulması önem taşımaktadır. Anayasa Mahkemesi’nin söz konusu kararında; vergi idaresinin iyi yönetişim ilkesine uygun olarak, bireysel başvuruya konu olan olaydaki gibi konu, kapsam, amaç bakımından sınırlı vergi incelemelerinde incelemeye tabi tutulan vergi yükümlüleri arasında farklı muamelede bulunmasını önlemek için gerekli tedbirleri alması gerektiğine hükmedilmiştir. Çalışmada, vergi hukukunda iyi yönetişim ilkesinin anlamı ve uygulanabilirliği irdelendikten sonra, vergi incelemesine ilişkin usul ve esaslara yönelik güncel yasal değişiklikler iyi yönetişim ilkesi açısından değerlendirilmektedir.
The concept of governance has reflections in the field of law and even specifically in the field of tax law. In its individual application review, Turkish Constitutional Court clearly states that the tax administration should act in accordance with the principle of good governance. In line with the European Court of Human Rights’ case law, the Constitutional Court evaluates this principle in the context of “proportionality” principle. In this regard, it is important to reveal the meaning, scope, and legal basis of the principle of governance in terms of tax law.
In this study, first of all, the concept of governance and the principle of good governance are discussed in general. Subsequently, it is questioned whether the principle of good governance is applicable in terms of tax law. In this context, it is concluded that acting in accordance with the principle of good governance in the taxation process is appropriate for the purposes of the rule of law and accordingly, democracy in the taxation process. On the other hand, it should be considered that this principle has no clear legal basis, its content is still somewhat vague. In addition, it is sometimes impossible, difficult or nonfunctional for the tax administration to interact with the taxpayer in accordance with good governance. In this regard, it is believed that it is not possible to apply this principle strictly and in all cases in tax law. However as a principle, the tax administration’s responsibility to provide information in case of a measure that affects or has the potential to affect the taxpayers’ rights and to provide the opportunity to express their opinions and objections against this measure will be in line with both the principle of good governance and the right of the taxpayer to be heard. In terms of the “active and participatory administration” dimension of the good governance principle, the administration’s passive attitude and failure to act in a timely and consistent manner would be contrary to the principle of good governance.
In addition, the study also focuses on the steps taken and/or should be taken with regards to tax audits in the direction of Reis Automotive judgment of the Constitutional Court. In the aforementioned judgment, it was ruled that the tax administration should take the necessary measures to prevent different treatments among those subject to tax audit that are limited in terms of subject, scope and purpose. One of the steps taken is the “Tax Inspection Board Advisory Commission Regulation” published in the Official Gazette, dated 7 April 2021 and numbered 31447. The purpose of the regulation is to establish an Advisory Commission to provide an opinion to the Presidency and to determine the working procedures and principles of this Commission in order to ensure unity concerning the tax audit duties and to resolve the unclear aspects that arise regarding the implementation of the provisions of the related legislation. Whether the Tax Inspection Board Advisory Commission will serve these purposes remains to be seen.
However, the latest amendments made with Act No. 73381 concerning tax audits are in the opposite direction of what is expected. Because the obligation to prepare a document that indicates the beginning of the audit (vergi inceleme tutanağı) and to be signed by both the administration and the taxpayer in the current system is abolished by the aforementioned amendments. Instead, it is deemed sufficient to notify the taxpayer of a letter stating that the audit has started (Article 18 of the Act no. 7338). Again, within the scope of the same act, the obligation to carry out the tax audit at the workplace of the taxpayer is abolished, and on the contrary, the rule that the audit should be carried out at the tax office was introduced (Article 17).
