Home / Comments and Opinions / Tax Officials and Šuker’s Regulations Do Not Recognize Croatian Laws

Tax Officials and Šuker’s Regulations Do Not Recognize Croatian Laws

According to Šuker’s regulations, the findings of financial oversight are a secret, and the budget revenue from mining and concession fees is also a secret. The minister disregards the Law on the Right to Access Information.

writes Ivica Grčar
[email protected]

In response to last week’s article about Zadar tax officials caught with their fingers in the criminal jam, readers reacted more seriously with online messages than on Lider’s website. Thus, a reader poses the question to me, himself, and others about how such people can ask others to pay taxes.  

Readers Warn
Tax Officials Also Violate the Enforcement Law
Kazimir Andrić asks me to publish his case and thus inform other taxpayers about the unlawful actions of tax officials in enforcement proceedings. In the reader’s case, the delivery note was not signed by an authorized person and was not certified with the company’s seal, and the postponement period of about 10 days to determine whether an objection was filed against that decision was not respected. Because the tax officials subsequently acted in that enforcement according to the filed objection, they had to return everything to its original state (including the return of forcibly seized money). Thus, others can also save themselves from enforcement.

The reader writes: ‘It is ugly when high tax officials devastate the tax system and go unpunished (covered up). And if taxpayers do the same, such tax officials punish them. At the entrance to the hall where they work with taxpayers, tax officials have placed a cross – presumably to protect and bless them. I believe you have not written everything and that you know much more; you are just waiting to see whether the Ministry will tell the whole truth or try to hide it.’

Tax Officials in the Café A female reader (details in the editorial office) writes that, given that she is very familiar with the situation in the Zadar Tax Administration, she wants to supplement last week’s article: ‘These are spouses who are reimbursed for travel expenses even though they live in Zadar. Besides travel expenses, they are entitled to a tax refund because they are falsely registered in the area of special state care. But they are not the only ones. 

I have already reported the case of the false residence registration of your colleague, a journalist who is entitled to a tax refund as if she lives in the area of special state care, while she actually lives in Zagreb. I also reported the case of the sister of a parliamentary representative who also lives in Zadar but receives benefits as if she lives in Škabrnja,’ writes the female reader. She further invites me to send someone to the premises of the Tax Administration in Zadar to see the conditions under which employees work. The workspaces are cluttered with archives, piles of old tax returns. It is already evident from the entrance that something is not ‘right’ in the organization. Of several counters, a queue only forms in front of two, while there is no one at the others. Clients often look for officials in the Tax Administration café instead of at their workplace, writes the female reader, who has meanwhile published a letter with the same content on the ZNET.hr portal.

Staniša Žarković, the president of the Council of the Serbian National Minority of Virovitica-Podravina County, also contacted me. This reader writes that, referring to the Law on the Right to Access Information, he requested that the minutes of the budget oversight conducted by the Ministry of Finance over the operations of the Serbian National Council, an association whose president is Milorad Pupovac, be provided to the Council of the Serbian National Minority.

Prolonged Court Dispute However, in the response class 400-06/10-01/436 dated November 2, 2010, signed on behalf of the Ministry of Finance by Ivan Šuker himself, it states that the minister ‘is obliged to provide the minutes of the conducted budget oversight to authorized institutions in accordance with Article 12, paragraph 2, or Article 14 of the Regulation on Budget Oversight if the conditions for that are met, but not to other persons.’ It is incredible, the reader wonders, that the minister refers to the Regulation he himself signed and that, by violating the constitutional order, he elevates the Regulation, as a subordinate act, above the valid Law on Access to Public Information.

And what to say about that? As a journalist, I am also conducting a prolonged court dispute against Šuker for similar reasons. In that dispute, Šuker elevated ‘his’ Regulation on the Register of Concessions above the Law on Access to Information, as well as all other regulations on public finances according to which the minister cannot, by referring to ‘his’ regulation, deny taxpayers information about public revenues of the state budget from concession and mining fees. And the minister withheld that information from taxpayers. 

We invite entrepreneurs to present their problems. Following your writings, by pointing out the absurdities in individual cases, we will highlight the shortcomings of the system as a whole and thus support Lider readers as individuals in their unequal disputes with the cumbersome state administration. Contact:
e-mail:
[email protected]
tel. 01/6333-524
address: Ivica Grčar, Lider,
Savska 41, 10144 Zagreb