Der Gesetzgeber beabsichtigt , die sog. dolose Selbstanzeige, also die Selbstanzeige in dem Bewusstsein, nicht vollständig „reinen Tisch“ zu machen, auszuschließen (§ 371 Abs. 1 Nr. 3 AO n.F., Entwurf der Bundesregierung v. 08.12.2010). Die wissentlich unvollständige Selbstanzeige wäre mithin nicht mehr strafbefreiend. Darüber hinaus ist der Zusatz im Gesetzesentwurf „oder bei verständiger Würdigung der Sachlage damit rechnen m usste“ beachtenswert. Denn ausweislich der Gesetzesbegründung the legislature intended to exclude only the self-consciously incomplete display. A negligent incomplete Nacherklärung he mentioned, however not in his Gestezesbegründung. The more it is unclear under what circumstances was this additional ground for exclusion (must-know = negligence) input into the draft of the text.
Should this wording law must apply the 'most favorable in my opinion: Because of the criminal law strictly formal principle of legality (rule of law, determination, bid) may mE ambiguities concerning the legal significance can not be solved at the expense of the taxpayer. This would be the self-disclosure excluded only in conscious incompleteness. The Court should be eagerly awaited. This argument does not apply to the preliminary consultation before a voluntary disclosure.
Note News is (still) the decision of the Supreme Court to consider v. 05.20.2010 after a partial self-disclosure is generally ineffective (see Beyer, AO-StB 2010, 129). It is argued that so far does not matter whether the imperfection was deliberately or negligently. Perhaps the legislature this decision for a period until the date of the Act declared not applicable. This is decided as yet.
About the new regulation will of the legislators in first Quarter of 2011 decide. Promptly, the law firm in the AO KONLUS Accountants then the new regulation - which might still differ can - discuss. At the moment, the old version of § 371 AO.
0 comments:
Post a Comment