Abstract
This article analyses the bill of 2nd February 2021 on additional revenues of the National Health Fund, the National Fund for the Protection of Historical Monuments and the establishment of a Fund for the Support of Culture and National Heritage in the Media Area. The draft legislation, the announcement of which has triggered an unprecedented blackout protest in private media as well as a mass anti-government protest on the Internet, provides for the introduction of new public levies called advertisement contributions and the establishment of a new state special-purpose fund – the Fund for the Support of Culture and National Heritage in the Media Area. The aim of the article is to identify and present those provisions of the draft act which have evoked most controversies and have given rise to the stiff social resistance to the proposal. The first part of the paper is devoted to the assessment of the regulations within the context of the objective of the bill that was declared by the drafters in the legislative rationale. The analysis carried out has supported the assumption that providing adequate finances for those special-purpose funds that are strongly involved in remedying the consequences of the SARS CoV-2 epidemic was not a genuine purpose of the bill. It also leads to the conclusion that there is no constitutional justification for such a special-purpose levy. In the second part, the controversies over technical components of the advertising levies have been presented and analysed. On the basis of this analysis, it is possible to conclude that some of the qualitative and quantitative elements of the so-called advertisement contributions may give rise to interpretative doubts. The implementation of the research objectives made it possible to formulate a thesis that the advertisement contributions, as drafted, would not be efficient instruments of fair taxation of digital economy but rather would form instruments for achieving certain political objectives.
Publisher
Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawla II
Subject
Development,Geography, Planning and Development
Reference23 articles.
1. Balázs, Rigó Csaba and András Tóth. “The Symbolic Significance of Digital Service Tax and its Practical Consequences.” Public Finance Quarterly, no. 4(2020): 515–526.
2. Bunn, Daniel, Elke Asen, Cristina Enache. “Digital Taxation around the World.” Accessed July 20, 2021. https://taxfoundation.org/digital-tax/, pdf.
3. Cui, Wei. “The Digital Services Tax: A Conceptual Defense.” Tax Law Review, no. 73(2020): 69–111.
4. Cui, Wei. “The Digital Services Tax on the Verge of Implementation.” Canadian Tax Journal, no. 67(4) (December 2019): 1135–1152.
5. Čejková, Tereza. “Tax Absence in Relation to Taxation of Digital Services.” Public Governance, Administration and Finances Law Review, vol. 5, no. 2(2020): 5–16.