Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sodba U 194/93-6 ECLI:SI:VSRS:1995:U.194.93.6 AI generated

Court dismisses tax appeal, ruling property value at acquisition cannot be altered by later sale agreements.

Case Number Sodba U 194/93-6
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The court dismissed the taxpayers' appeal against the tax authority's decision to levy capital gains tax based on the property's value at acquisition. The taxpayers argued that a subsequent exchange agreement should revalue the property before calculating the gain, but the court rejected this. The court held that the value established at the time of purchase, agreed upon by all parties, serves as the fixed baseline and cannot be adjusted for later transactions.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Zakon o upravnih sporih; Zakon o daveku na dobiček iz kapitala: The value of property determined at the time of acquisition, as agreed in the purchase contract, serves as the fixed basis for calculating capital gains tax and cannot be revalued based on subsequent sale or exchange agreements.

Keywords

AI generated
capital gains tax property valuation acquisition value administrative appeal tax assessment fixed basis subsequent sale

Cited Legislation

AI generated
2. odstavek 42. člen Zakona o upravnih sporih
1. odstavek 4. člen Ustavnega zakona za izvedbo temeljne ustavne listine
AI generated
Sodba U 590/93-6
Court allows tax appeal, ruling acquisition value includes financing costs paid before purchase date.
Sodba U 1022/92-4
Court dismisses tax appeal, ruling capital gains tax applies regardless of inheritance transfer basis if sold within ten years.
Sodba U 660/93-8
Administrative court dismisses tax decision due to failure to explain valuation index calculation.
sodba I U 886/2013
Administrative court allows tax appeal, quashing tax authority decision on capital gains tax base. The court found the tax authority failed to fully ascertain facts regarding the acquisition value of capital. The court ruled that the tax authority must reconsider the case, incorporating the taxpayer's argument that the tax authority did not fully ascertain the facts relevant to determining the correct tax base, specifically regarding the inclusion of transaction tax in the acquisition value as required by the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the administrative court quashed the tax authority's decision and remanded the case for a new proceeding where the authority must consider the taxpayer's valid objection and the principle of assistance. The court held that the tax authority failed to fully ascertain the facts relevant to determining the correct tax base, specifically regarding the inclusion of transaction tax in the acquisition value as required by the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the administrative court quashed the tax authority's decision and remanded the case for a new proceeding where the authority must consider the taxpayer's valid objection and the principle of assistance. The court held that the tax authority failed to fully ascertain the facts relevant to determining the correct tax base, specifically regarding the inclusion of transaction tax in the acquisition value as required by the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the administrative court quashed the tax authority's decision and remanded the case for a new proceeding where the authority must consider the taxpayer's valid objection and the principle of assistance. The court held that the tax authority failed to fully ascertain the facts relevant to determining the correct tax base, specifically regarding the inclusion of transaction tax in the acquisition value as required by the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the administrative court quashed the tax authority's decision and remanded the case for a new proceeding where the authority must consider the taxpayer's valid objection and the principle of assistance.
Sodba U 623/93-3
Court dismisses tax appeal where social housing sold at inflated value without discount is taxed at 20%.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Tožba se zavrne.

[JEDRO]

Ob prodaji stanovanja se ne more spreminjati njegova vrednost, ki je bila dogovorjena ob predhodnem nakupu stanovanja.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Iz upravnih spisov izhaja, da je tožena stranka z odločbama št. 416-637/92 z dne 28.12.1992 zavrnila pritožbo tožnikov zoper odločbi Republiške uprave za javne prihodke - Izpostava Ljubljana Bežigrad - 537/92-6/PJ z dne 4.11.1992, s katerima je ta tožnikoma odmerila vsakemu 72.436,00 SIT davka od dobička iz kapitala, doseženega s prodajo stanovanja. Tožena stranka v obrazložitvi svojih odločb navaja, da sta tožnika 19.10.1992 skupaj prodala stanovanje za 3,100.000,00 SIT, ki sta ga pridobila z menjalno pogodbo 28.1.1991 ocenjenega na 422.969,00 SIT, ta vrednost je bila prijavljena tudi za odmero davka od prometa nepremičnin in odločba o odmeri je dokončna, tako da je 1/2 valoriziranega stanovanja vsakega od tožnikov vredna 1,156.820,00 SIT. Razlika, zmanjšana za prometni davek 31.000,00 SIT, znaša 362.180,00 SIT, 20 % davek od dobička pa 72.436,00 SIT. Tožena stranka meni, da je bil davek odmerjen v skladu s predpisi, zato je pritožbo zavrnila.

Tožnika v tožbi navajata, da se ne strinjata z ovrednotenjem stanovanja ob pridobitvi 28.1.1991, ker da je stanovanje bilo ocenjeno z valuto 15.10.1990 na 422.969,00 SIT. Z valorizacijo te vrednosti za čas do 28.1.1991 pa bi naj stanovanje ob zamenjavi bilo vredno 508.716,20 SIT, in v skladu z aneksom k menjalni pogodbi z dne 25.10.1992 bi se ta vrednost morala upoštevati pri odmeri davka od dobička iz kapitala. Predlagata, da sodišče izpodbijani odločbi razveljavi in zadevo vrne v ponovno odločanje, ali pa samo spremeni odločbi.

V odgovoru na tožbo tožena stranka predlaga zavrnitev tožbe iz razlogov izpodbijanih odločb.

Iz upravnih spisov izhaja, da je vsakemu od tožnikov bila izdana posebna odločba o odmeri davka od dobička iz kapitala, na prvi in drugi stopnji, ker pa sta tožnika vložila skupno tožbo, je sodišče tudi skupno obravnavalo obe izpodbijani odločbi.

Tožba ni utemeljena.

Sodišče se strinja z odločitvijo tožene stranke iz bistveno pravilnih razlogov navedenih v izpodbijanih odločbah. Ni sprejemljivo stališče tožnikov, da bi se pri odmeri oziroma pred odmero davka od dobička iz kapitala morala revalorizirati vrednost prodanega stanovanja, ki je ugotovljena v menjalni pogodbi z dne 28.1.1991. V menjalni pogodbi navedena vrednost 422.969,00 SIT je imela podlago v predhodno opravljeni cenitvi, razen tega pa je bila sporazumno določena s strani vseh pogodbenih strank menjalne pogodbe. Sodišče sicer meni, da upravni organ pri odmeri davka od dobička iz kapitala ni bil vezan na odločbo o odmeri davka od prometa nepremičnin, strinja pa se, da se ne more upoštevati višje vrednotenje stanovanja v času zamenjave, ki bi bilo dogovorjeno ob nadaljnji prodaji tega stanovanja. Ni sprejemljivo, da bi se vrednost stanovanja spreminjala oziroma prilagajala vsakokratni potrebi. Za ugotavljanje dobička iz kapitala in za odmero davka od tega dobička je pomembna kot izhodiščna vrednost tista vrednost, ki jo je stanovanje imelo ob pridobitvi, in ta je bila med pogodbenimi strankami sporazumno določena na 422.969,00 SIT. S tako vrednostjo pa se je strinjal tudi upravni organ pri odmeri davka na promet nepremičnin, saj ni izkazano, da bi v odmernem postopku ugotavljal drugačno vrednost. Pravilnosti izračuna samega davka tožnika ne osporavata.

Glede na navedeno je sodišče tožbo zavrnilo kot neutemeljeno na

podlagi 2. odstavka 42. člena zakona o upravnih sporih, ki ga je v skladu z določbo 1. odstavka 4. člena ustavnega zakona za izvedbo temeljne ustavne listine o samostojnosti in neodvisnosti Republike Slovenije (Uradni list RS, št. 1/91-I) smiselno uporabilo kot predpis Republike Slovenije.