Stamp control of real estate sale contracts drawn up before a notary public in the light of the provisions of the Stamp Act of 1926
Sebastian Kwiecień
Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II , Polandhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-4858-794X
Abstract
The Act of July 1, 1926 on stamp duty finally removed the provisions of the partitioning powers from the Polish legal order, eliminating the divergence of the regulations, legislative complexity, uneven treatment of the subject of taxation, and archaic methods of paying the stamp duty. At the same time, until 1933, separate provisions for former Galicia were maintained. As a consequence, we can only talk about the unification of the type of stamp duties charged, while maintaining separate rules for the manner of collecting them. The stamp duty itself was nothing more than a special type of cash benefit collected by the State from all letters confirming legal action and from legal acts not in writing. In order to facilitate the system of collecting stamp duties, the legislator gave the notary public the attribute of an official authority, responsible for its calculation and collection. In view of this solution, the legislator had to introduce a control mechanism that was to disclose situations where such a notary would make an error, by applying an incorrect rate of stamp duty or bypassing the act by the parties to the contract, by indicating to the notary public the value of the subject of the contract which is incompatible with the actual state of affairs from which the stamp duty was charged. In the first case, the taxpayer had practically two options: to agree with the size of the stamp duty presented by the payment order or to lodge an appropriate appeal to the Tax Chamber. It is important that, despite the notary’s error, it was the taxpayer himself who had de facto defended the notary’s position during the appeal process. On the other hand, underestimating the value of the transaction, that is, knowingly giving a notary a false statement actual state of fact, was already a criminal offence. In both cases, there was a decrease in the State Treasury’s income, but the consequences for the taxpayer were different. Despite this, the legislator did not decide to introduce an obligation to present each notary deed of sale, which would allow for a quick verification of both the rate and value of the contract used.
Keywords:
stamp duties, stamp control, notary public, interwar periodReferences
Antonów D., Opata skarbowa w polskim porządku prawnym, Warszawa 2017.
Antonów D., Unifikacja opłat stemplowych w okresie rządów sanacji – ustawa z 1 lipca 1926 roku o opłatach stemplowych, Studia Nad Autorytaryzmem i Totaliryzmem 2018, t. 40, nr 4.
Buczma-Czapliński M., Poradnik prawniczy, Lwów-Warszawa-Poznań 1932.
Cichowicz L., Anytomia pomiędzy art. 28 ust. 2 a art. 27 liczba 1 oraz art. 1, 5, 10 ustawy stemplowej, dalej ordynacją notarjacką w ust. pr. o sadownictwie niepornem z 21 września 1899, Czasopismo Adwokatów Polskich 1927, nr 2.
Gliniecka J., Prawna ewolucja konstrukcji przedmiotu opłaty skarbowej w polskim systemie dochodów samorządowych, Gdańskie Studia Prawnicze 2015, t. 34.
Jaworski W., Reforma rolna a hipoteka i kataster, Przegląd Notarjalny 1928, nr 2.
Jaworski W., Obrót ziemią w obecnym ustawodawstwie, Przegląd Notarjalny 1930, nr 1–2.
Kępa M., Ewolucja opodatkowania obrotu niezawodowego w Polsce w latach 1918–1947, Studia Iuridica Lublinensia 2010, t. 14.
Kodeks Stemplowy, Lwów 1927.
Kozioł F., Opłaty stemplowe, w: Odrodzona skarbowość polska, Warszawa 1931.
Markowski A., Podatki od obrotów i opłaty, Warszawa 1924.
Rosenkranz A., Zasady wytyczne projektu ustawy o opłatach stemplowych, Warszawa 1924.
Rosenkranz A., Noatarjusz jako poborca opłat stemplowych. Kilka założeń ogólnych w związku ze sprawą „Ofert co do nieruchomości”, Przegląd Notarjalny 1934, nr 6.
Stein S., Kilka uwag o zastosowaniu praktycznem nowej ustawy stemplowej, Przegląd Notarjalny 1927, nr 1.
W sprawie wykładni ustawy stemplowej, Przegląd Notarjalny 1927, nr 1. Współdziałanie notariusza w postępowaniu odwoławczym, „Przegląd Notarjalny” 1938, nr 10.
Zakrocki L., Na drogach i bezdrożach ustawy stemplowej, Przegląd Notarjalny 1928, nr 1–2.
Żuromski K., Oferta co do nieruchomości. Kilka uwag de lege ferenda, Przegląd Notarjalny 1934, nr 3.
Żuromski K., Jeszcze o opłacie stemplowej przy ofertach co do nieruchomości w świetle wykładni N.T.A., Przegląd Notarjalny 1934, nr 9.
Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4858-794X
License
The Author declares that the Work is original and does not infringe any personal or proprietary rights of third parties, and that She/He has unlimited rights to the Work which are the subject of the Agreement signed with the Publisher.
Author of the publication transfers to the Publisher the economic copyrights to the Work (article) submitted for publication, free of charge, without time and territorial restrictions in the following fields of use:
a) production, recording and reproduction of the copies of the Work by a specific technique, including printing, magnetic recording and digital technology;
b) marketing, lending or rental of the original or copies of the Work, and distribution in the form of open access, in accordance with the license Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (also known as CC BY), available at: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode.pl;
c) inclusing the Work in the composition of the collective work;
d) publishing on the website of the journal, public performance, exhibition, display, reproduction, broadcasting and rebroadcasting, and making the Work available to the public in such a way that everyone can have access to them in a place and at a time chosen by them;
e) uploading the Work in an electronic form to electronic platforms or other uploading of the Work in an electronic form to the Internet or other network.
The proprietary copyright to the Work is transferred to the Publisher free of charge upon signing the contract wit the Publisher.
