Well, things are escalating quickly.
Early this morning RMF24 (news portal made by one of the biggest radio stations in Poland) published an interview with Deputy Minister of Finance Paweł Cybulski.
Article title:
Przełom w sprawie kryptowalut. Nie trzeba płacić podatku od czynności cywilnoprawnych, ale…English version: A
breakthrough in the cryptocurrencies case. You do not have to pay tax on civil law transactions, but...
Are words written down in the mentioned article proves that we've a breakthrough?
NO.Deputy Minister of Finance said early today that
The Canon of Convenience
In terms of PCC tax, the principle of taxation convenience is applicable. If we can settle out of tax, if it's real and possible, we should settle out. (...) PCC is being questioned at this moment because this tax does not have the principle of taxation convenience. It is difficult to tax three hundred, four hundred or one thousand transactions with one taxpayer and force him to submit PCC every time
The problem? Who will determine how many transactions will be convenient for settlement and how many are not convenient to be settled out?
It means that if someone can pay PCC tax from cryptocurrencies, he should do it. If not, then the tax office promises a
gentle approach
What makes this words even funnier? Principle of taxation convenience made by Adam Smith is not defined in any Polish in any official document, statute, constitution, local laws - literally nowhere.
Imagine tax offices that treat tax inconvenience as the main reason for not paying the tax. For sure
Paweł Cybulski later added that
I'm not saying not to settle PCC. I say to settle PCC when it is possible to settle. When it will be convenient. So if we made one transaction on cryptocurrencies, with one taxpayer. But I stress, I am talking about convenience.
For sure we will approach it more liberally than strictly.
For sure, we will not try to draw taxpayers money in a forceful way. For sure we will want to do it wisely.
Oh thank you!
Reason lies in the fact that we must understand the situation of the other side. We have to look at it humanly, not cold, stiffly, according to the current letter of the law. This letter of law at this point is completely different from reality, from the possibility of exercising this right.
We will only catch cases that indicate that the taxpayer could settle in a bright way, and he did not.
