Серія юридична 355 Michalina Duda, Ph. D. Chair of Financial Law The Catholic University of Lublin The controversy over the material scope of Polish gaming tax Selected issues I. A statement of the problem Gambling is a fast-growing industry around the world, leading many Governments to believe that games of chance are important potential sources of public revenue. This is especially true for Internet gaming and gambling. As a rule in the European Union the regulation and taxation of gambling is currently the responsibility of each MemberState. In consequence most countries, including Poland, levy a specific betting and gambling tax. The issue that arouses intense controversy among both participants (the gambling industry) and lawyers is the problem of the taxation of illegal gambling. According to the Gambling Law of 19 November 2009,tax on gaming is levied only on those natural persons, legal entities or non-legal entities which run activities within the ambit of games subject to the licence or permit granted to them, the entities organising games within the State monopoly poker tournament participants. By contrast, not only illegal activity, but also gambling activity which is not regulated under the above Gambling Law, are not liable to tax on games. With regard to the scope of the tax, it should also be pointed out that under the Gambling Law slot-machine games may be organised only in casinos, which means that the activity within the field may be conducted only as a joint-stock company or limited-liability company with its registered office within the territory of Poland. Moreover, Internet gambling is strictly prohibited. Because of the situation described above, the budgetary revenue from gambling tax has been falling steadily for the past three years, and the question arises as to what are the general principles underlying Government policy towards the taxation of gambling.
НАУКОВИЙ ВІСНИК 3 2014 Львівського державного університету внутрішніх справ II. Setting a purpose The primary aim of this article is to present the change process of the material scope of gaming since 1992 and to demonstrate the controversy related to the accepted way of determining its scope. The first part of the article analyses the provisions of the Law of July 1992 on Games and Mutual Wagering. The second part analyses the provisions of the currently binding Gambling Law of 19 November 2009. III. An analysis of the latest studies and publications on the topic Although the taxation of gambling is an increasingly-important aspect of tax policy, it has not received much attention in Polish tax doctrine. There are no monographs, either on the taxation of gambling or on gaming tax. Nevertheless a few publications which concentrate on the legal aspect of gambling address the problem of gaming tax. The first book, called The legal aspects of gambling by GrzegorzSkowronek, includes a separate chapter on the fees paid by entities organising games of chance and on gaming tax. It presents the latest changes to the scope of the tax, focussing on the taxation of poker winnings and audiotele lotteries. This book also provides an overview of each game of chance, as well as the conditions under which it may be organised. The second work is a legal commentary on the Gambling Law written by Mirosław Bik, Robert Kamionowski, DariuszObrępalski and KatarzynaRyszard. This book provides lawyers and entrepreneurs running activities in the field of gambling with a better understanding of the provisions in force and combines legal analysis with practical guidance. Moreover, it discusses the problem of the scope of taxation, pointing out that excluding taxation on illegal gambling formats might raise doubts about the constitutionality of these provisions. Passing on to articles, it should be stressed that although the number of papers concerning the regulation of gambling has increased in recent years there are very few articles which deal with the problem of tax on games. Two of them deserve special attention. The first is a study called A ban on gambling activities not regulated under the Law of July 1992 on Games and Mutual Wagering written by MarekKrawczak. In spite of the fact that the main aim of this paper is to analyse the scope of the ban, it also offers a broader perspective on the scope of gaming tax. More importantly, it has not become out of date, even though the Law on Games and Mutual Wagering has been revoked. In the second article, entitled Video lotteries as a form of non-regulated gambling activities,grzegorzłabuda advanced the theory that activities in the field of gambling might be organised and run not only under the Gambling Law but also according to the general rules of 356
Серія юридична Public Commercial Law. It is beyond doubt that the latter categories of games will not be liable to gambling tax. IV. The material scope of gaming tax pursuant to the Law of July 1992 on Games and Mutual Wagering. Games of chance have had a rich tradition in Poland, despite the fact that they were first organised later than in other European countries [1, s. 92 and following]. Gambling as a source of profit for the State in the form of treasury privileges and taxes has also had a relatively long-standing tradition. One should note that the first classical lottery in Poland was organised in 1748, and the first numerical lottery in 1768 [2, p. 18]. In 1775, tax on card games was introduced, as a consumption tax collected in the form of a stamp on a pack of cards [3, p. 10 and following]. 1918, after Poland became independent again, was the year of the introduction of the state lottery monopoly and the so-called stamp fee on game cards, which their producers and importers were obliged to pay [4]. In addition, both between 1918 and 1939 and for a few years after the Second World War finished communes (gminas) had the right to collect tax on the entry to horse races, and similar events, if games or betting took place there and also to collect tax on the stakes themselves. In the People s Republic of Poland gambling market consisted exclusively of totalisators, numerical games, cash lotteries and games on machines run exclusively by state enterprises, and charity or public interest raffles which could be organized by natural persons who received the relevant licence [5, p. 32-36]. Card games and roulette were organised exclusively on passenger ferries [6, p. 27]. Persons granted the licence to organise a raffle were obliged to pay the monopoly fee and stamp duty [7, p. 33]. State enterprises organising games of chance had to pay single-phase sales tax [8]. Gaming tax in its modern form was introduced into the Polish legal tax system by way of the Law of 29 July 1992 on Games and Mutual Wagering [9], and has existed since then. It constitutes the form of taxation of sales on games and mutual wagering. One should note that events subject to gaming tax are also subject to general sales tax [10, p. 141], and the Value Added Tax Act provides for a separate exemption for games of chance, mutual wagering and game son machines subject to gaming tax [11]. Gaming tax, introduced into the Polish tax system on 10 December 1992, was the first sales tax adopted within the framework of the tax system reform [12]. It was intended to constitute a form of the taxation of sales on the activities within the ambit of games and mutual wagering. Significantly, 357
НАУКОВИЙ ВІСНИК 3 2014 Львівського державного університету внутрішніх справ the tax was not introduced through a separate tax law but rather under the provisions in the Law of July 1992 on Games and Mutual Wagering, i.e. under the provisions the Law which was intended to replace both the Tax Law in the part concerning the sales tax on the activity in the field of games of chance and totalisator systems [13] and also the Law of 1952 on Horse Racing [14]. The fact that the provisions regulating gaming tax constituted and still constitute only part of a larger whole, which is significantly different in terms of material scope, has a considerable impact on the way they are interpreted and also determines the features of the levy in question. The assumption behind the introduction of gaming tax was that subject to the taxation would be entities organising games and running activities in the field of games of chance and mutual wagering [15]. By contrast, the subject of taxation was not defined and only the concept of tax basis was used. It should be noted that in legal doctrine this type of a normative utterance is seen as acceptable on condition that it allows the reconstruction of the subject of taxation through an interpretation [16, p. 167]. In the Law analysed here, tax bases were defined separately for each type of game: lotteries, numerical games, cash bingo, raffle bingo, card games (black jack and baccarat), games on machines, poker and mutual wagering [17]. If we assume that the legislator when defining the tax basis used the most classical form of utterance, or referred to the part of the subject of taxation which indicates the target of the behaviour of the tax entity [18, p. 181], we may conclude that the subject of gaming tax was organising and running not any games or acts of betting but only those within the categories of mutual wagering and games of chance described above. The legal definitions of games and acts of mutual wagering were included in the general part of the Law. Games of chance were games whose outcome is conditional on chance [19]. According to the provisions they were the following: numerical games, cash lotteries, raffle lotteries, cylindrical games, card games (black jack, poker and baccarat), games on machines as well as cash bingo and raffle bingo. It should be added that all types of games of chance were separately defined in the Law. Mutual wagering was defined as acts of betting consisting in predicting: a) the outcome of human or animal sport competitions, whose participants paid stakes and the amount of the prize depended on the total amount of the pre-paid stakes (toalisator systems); b) the occurence of different events whose participants paid stakes and the amount of the prize depended on the stake-winnings ratio that 358
Серія юридична was agreed between the bookmaker and a stake payer (bookmaking services) [20]. The Minister of the Public Finance was authorized to determine by means of a decision whether a given chance game or an act of mutual wagering not enumerated in the inventory mentioned above was a game of chance or an act of mutual wagering, and whether it consequently was subject to gaming tax [21]. Pursuant to the provisions mentioned above a significant interpretation problem appeared, which was related to the question whether the provisions of the Law of July 1992 on Games and Mutual Wagering allowed the organisation and, consequently, the taxation of games of chance of a mixed character combining the features of two or more different games enumerated in the inventory included in the Law or entirely new games. The judicature was not unanimous in this respect. On the one hand, there was a view that the Law contained all the types games of chance that could be organized if a licence had been granted. Consequently, it would have not been possible to grant a licence for a game of a mixed character [22]. On the other hand, there was also a view that the inventory of games of chance contained in the Law is open-ended, as reflected by the authorisation of the Minister of Finance to decide, by way of decision, whether a game not enumerated in the Law is a game of chance [23]. In addition, a view was put forward that mixed games must not be created, while the authorisation of the Minister to make a so-called qualifying decision was only applicable to games that are completely new, not enumerated in the Law. Consequently, the Minister had the right to supplement their inventory and also to resolve other issues, including the issues related to the method of taxation [24]. For a few years after the Law came into effect, a major problem was related to promotional lotteries, which were not listed in the inventory contained in the Law. In practice, they were sometimes qualified as games that met the criteria of raffle and cash lotteries [25]. The judicature was not unanimous in this respect and the view that gradually became dominant under the influence of legal doctrine was that a restrictive interpretation should be applied, which excludes extension of the concept of game of chance onto other fields, particularly onto economic activity. In 1997, in order to resolve the doubts mentioned above, promotional lotteries - i.e. lotteries in which one participates through a purchase of a commodity or service and the entity organising the lottery offers cash or material prizes were added to the list of games of chance and simultaneously excluded from the scope of gaming [26]. 359
НАУКОВИЙ ВІСНИК 3 2014 Львівського державного університету внутрішніх справ The definition of slot-machine games was also controversial as in the light of the definition it was necessary for a given game to be considered a game of chance to demonstrate its two basic features, i.e. its randomness and the fact that the prize had been paid [27]. This meant that the governing Law and gaming tax were not applicable to games of skill. Because of the need to eliminate the ambiguities mentioned above, by way of an amendment of 2000, games on machines were excluded from the list of games of chance and also the definition of games of chance was changed by eliminating randomness [28]. From the year 2000, games on machines were games with cash or material prizes on mechanical, electromechanical and electronic machines, regardless whether they were based on chance or skill [29]. The third type of controversy concerning the material scope of gaming tax was related to the difference between games of chance and knowledge-based games. Until 2000, games of chance were defined as games where the prize was either cash or a material prize and where the outcome was conditional on chance, while their terms and conditions were stipulated by the gaming regulations [30]. Therefore a question arose whether their chance character was determined by the fact that the outcome of the whole game, which was not purely a game of chance, was dependent on chance or that the randomness meant the outcome was dependent exclusively on chance [31]. The problem mentioned above was solved by the amendment of 2000 [32], by adopting a new definition of games of chance according to which they were games with the prize that was either cash or a material prize and where the outcome was conditional, in particular, on chance, while their terms and conditions were stipulated by the gaming regulations [33]. It s worth mentioning that the currently-binding Gambling Law contains an identical provision [34]. Within the amendment, the list of games of chance was extended to contain dice games and audiotele lotteries, i.e. lotteries in which one participates by a paid telephone connection and the entity organizing the lottery offers cash or material prizes [35]. However, these lotteries were not subject to gaming tax. The subsequent amendment, in 2003, was also connected with the emergence of new technologies [36]. As a result, the list of games of chance was expanded to contain video lotteries and telebingo. Video lotteries were defined as games organised within a network of video terminals connected to a central reporting and monitoring system, in which one participates by purchasing a ticket or other proof of participation, while the participant may pick numbers, characters or other distinguishing signs and the entity organising video lotteries offers only cash prizes [37]. Telebingo was defined 360
Серія юридична as a game in which one participates by purchasing proof of participation in a game containing a random group of numbers or characters belonging to a pre-defined set of numbers or characters, organized at the national level with drawing of lots transmitted as a television programme, in which the entity organising the game offers cash or material prizes [38]. In 2003, by way of an amendment, a new category was also introduced: so-called slot-machine games with low prizes, and the organisation of these games outside casinos and amusement arcades was permitted. Slotmachine games with low prizes were games on mechanical, electromechanical and electronic devices, where the single winnings could not exceed 15 euro and the amount of the maximum stake for the participation in a single game could not exceed 0.07 euro [39]. It should be noted that the draft of the amendment was proposed within the governmental Entrepreneurship First package and was intended to stimulate the economy in the gambling sector and also to increase the budgetary tax revenue in [40]. Pursuant to the Law of July 1992 on Games and Mutual Wagering subject to amendments was also the provision authorising the Minister of Finance to make qualifying decisions but the first change was only editorial and adjusting in character. In 2003, this regulation received a new wording, by stating that the Minister of Finance determines, by way of a decision, whether a given game of chance, act of mutual wagering, game on a machine or a slot machine game with low prizes is a game of chance, act of mutual wagering, game on a machine or a slot machine game within the meaning of the Law [41]. Consequently, it was indicated, in an almost unambiguous way, that such a decision does not apply to new types games and acts of betting. Despite the change of the provision, the judicature did not altogether reject the view that the list of gambling games is open-ended in character [42]. It is difficult to agree with such a view, and one may also conclude, that the aim to make the rights of the Minister more specific was not fully met. V. Material scope of gaming tax pursuant to the Gambling Law of 19 November 2009 The Gambling Law of 19 November 2009 introduced significant changes into the normative structure of gaming tax. The subject of gaming tax was described expressisverbis, which means that the Constitutional requirement concerning the statutory regulation of the taxation structure was met [43]. Consequently, according to the binding provisions of the Law, two different categories of activities are subject to taxation by gaming tax. Firstly, the organisation of gambling games, excluding promotional lotteries 361
НАУКОВИЙ ВІСНИК 3 2014 Львівського державного університету внутрішніх справ and poker played as poker tournament. Secondly, the participation in a poker game played as a poker tournament [44]. One should note that the binding Law contains a collective definition of gambling games games of chance, mutual wagering and slot-machine games [45]. Games of chance were defined as games where the prize is either cash or a material prize and where the outcome is conditional, in particular, on chance, while their terms and conditions are stipulated by the gaming regulations. Such games are numerical games (including keno), cash lotteries, telebingo, cylindrical games, card games (blackjack, poker and baccarat), dice games, cash bingo, raffle bingo, raffle lotteries, promotional lotteries and audiotele lotteries [46]. In addition, despite the interpretation doubts caused by the 1992 Law, the Minister of Finance still has the authority to decide whether a given enterprise has the features of a game or a betting act [47]. However, a provision was added according to which the application for a qualifying decision must be supplemented with a description of a current or planned enterprise containing, in particular, its terms and conditions, planned prizes, method of choosing the winners and also in the case of slot-machine games technical examination of a given machine, performed by a unit authorised to examine gaming machines and devices. The Law also stipulates that the Minister of Finance may request the provision of such documents by a party in the proceedings conducted ex officio [48]. The scope of activities subject to taxation was extended to include the organisation of audiotele lotteries and the participation in a poker game played in a poker tournament, while audiotele lotteries were defined more broadly than in the 1992 Law it was clearly indicated that one may participate in such a lottery by sending short text messages (SMS) [49]. Subjecting of audiotele lotteries to gaming tax was justified, first and foremost, by the growth of the market for such lotteries and also by fiscal needs. It was also stressed that the activity of organising them has a distinctive character because a vast majority of audiotele lotteries which have been organized so far have just supplemented the main activities and aimed at making the product range, of for example a TV or radio station, more attractive [50]. In addition to audiotele lotteries, the scope of activities subject to gaming tax was extended to include the participation in a poker game played within a poker tournament [51, p. 127-143]. Furthermore, according to the provisions of the Gambling Law, organising poker games in casinos is acceptable only in the form of a so-called game tournament, on the basis of a licence granted by the Minister of Finance [52]. Detailed rules of such a tournament, including the specification of the amount of the capital allotted 362
Серія юридична for instant prizes, are defined in the gaming regulations approved by the Minister of Finance [53]. The analysis of the material scope of gaming tax one should also take into account the fact that video lotteries were removed from the statutory list, with the justification that because of a high addiction risk they may no longer be organised [54]. Consequently, a doubt appeared if under current legal conditions running activities in the field of video lotteries and other games not listed in in the Law is acceptable at all and if the Minister of Finance may by way of a decision consider them to be games of chance, including enterprises other the 11 game categories listed [55, p. 60-71]. One should take into the account the fact that the Gambling Law is of administrative and tax character, while the structure of the legal definition of gambling games determines not only the scope of restricted gambling but also the scope of tax liability. Therefore, it seems that the legislator aimed to eradicate the imprecision of the phrase gambling games, which leads to a conclusion that subject to taxation are only the games which were enumerated in the Law and are organised in accordance with the principles stipulated in the Law. The adoption of a view that the Minister of Finance may, by way of a decision, recognise enterprises other than listed in the Law would mean the extension of the material scope of tax in a non-statutory way which would explicitly contradict the principle of the statutory regulation of the basic elements of tax law relationship. In addition, due to the method of specifying the tax basis, it would be impossible to determine tax amount for such a new game. VI. Conclusions The analysis of the provisions concerning the material scope of gaming tax makes it possible to draw the following conclusions: 1. Gaming tax, which has been in effect for over 20 years, is of marginal significance for the budgetary revenue. Pursuant to the the Law of 29 July 1992 on Games and Mutual Wagering this levy was defined indirectly by specifying the tax bases for each category of games and betting transactions. As the provisions concerning gaming tax constituted only part of an extensive taxation and administrative regulation, legal definitions were included in the general part of the Law, while the Minister of Public Finance was authorised to determine, by means of a decision, whether a game or a betting transaction not listed in the Law was a game of chance or a betting act and, consequently, whether it was subject to gaming tax. 2. The changes of the material scope of gaming tax introduced between 1992 and 2009 were predominantly intended to increase the fiscal 363
НАУКОВИЙ ВІСНИК 3 2014 Львівського державного університету внутрішніх справ efficiency of this levy. As result of social and technological change in the gambling sector, the material scope of the taxation was gradually being extended to include new types of games. In social terms, of particular significance was the permission to run the activity of organising games on slotmachines with low prizes outside gaming centres. New legal opportunities in new areas of gambling games resulted in a number of entities establishing legal gaming activities in the field of games on slot-machines with low prizes, which led to an increase in the budgetary revenue from the relevant taxation. 3. Interpretation doubts connected with the list of games of chance in the Law and also with the scope of the authority of the Minister of Finance to issue qualifying decisions contributed to the change of the contents of the relevant provision. Since 2003, the Minister of Finance is authorised to determine by way of a decision, whether a game of chance, a betting act or a slot-machine game with the features listed in the Law is a game of chance, a betting act or a slot-machine game with low prizes. 4. The Gambling Law meets the constitutional requirement of the statutory regulation of the elements of the structure of tax as the provisions clearly specify the subject of gaming tax, and make a reference to the concept of gambling games specified in the general part of the Law. Consequently, subject to taxation are only the games which were enumerated in the Law and organised in accordance with the principles stipulated in the Law (so-called restricted gambling). 5. In the Gambling Law due to the need to increase the budgetary revenue the material scope of the tax was extended to include the organisation of audiotele lotteries and the participation in a poker game played in poker tournament. At the same time, for social reasons, because of a high addiction risk, the possibility to organise games on any machines featuring elements of chance outside casinos was discontinued. Currently, subject to taxation is only the organisation of games by the entities running activities under licences granted before 1 January 2010. Also discontinued was the possibility to legally organise, and levy tax on, the most aggressive forms of games, i.e. online games or video lotteries. References 1. In the modern world the first institutionalised form of gambling were lotteries, which appeared in Flanders in the 14th century See more: D. G. Schwartz, Historiahazardu, Warszawa 2009, p. 92 364
Серія юридична 2. See: W. Paszkowski, Loterja i ład społeczny. Przyczynek do sprawy uregulowania stosunków loteryjnych u nas, Warszawa 1917, p. 18. 3. See: R. Rybarski, Skarbowość Polski w dobie rozbiorów, Kraków 1937, p. 10 and following. 4. Ustawa z 26 marca 1920 r. w przedmiocie urządzania loterji i założenia Polskiej Państwowej Loterji Klasowej, Dz. U. RP Nr 31, poz. 180; ustawa z dnia 9 lipca 1936 r. o monopolu loteryjnym, Dz. U. RP Nr 55, poz. 398 ustawa z dnia 6 lipca 1920 r. w przedmiocie opłaty stemplowej od kart do gry, Dz. U. RP Nr 101, poz. 666. 5. See: A. Drwiłło, J. Gliniecka, Prawno-finansowe zagadnienia gier losowych w Polsce, Finanse 1978, no 9, p. 32-36. 6. See: L. Palczyński, Gry losowe, Finanse 1980, no 7, p. 27. 7. See: A. Drwiłło, J. Gliniecka, op. cit., p. 33. 8. Art. 6 ust. 1 pkt ustawy z dnia 26 lutego 1982 r. o opodatkowaniu jednostek gospodarki uspołecznionej, tekst jedn. Dz. U. z 1987 r. Nr 12, poz. 77, z późn. zm. 9. Art. 40-47 ustawy z dnia 29 lipca 1992 r. o grach losowych i zakładach wzajemnych, Dz. U. Nr 68, poz. 431, z późn. zm., dalej jako: ustawa o grach i zakładach wzajemnych. 10. Seemore: W. Modzelewski, Podatki obrotowe [w:] System prawa finansowego, t. III, Prawo daniowe, red. L. Etel, Warszawa 2010, p. 141. 11. Art. 43 ust. 1 pkt 15 ustawy z dnia 11 marca 2004 r. o podatku od towarów i usług, tekst jedn. Dz. U. z 2011 r. Nr 177, poz. 1054, z późn. zm. 12. The reform of Polish tax law, related to the transformation of the political system, was initiated in 1989 but the work on its general assumptions was in progress before the introduction of the Balcerowicz Plan. See: I. Bolkowiak, Polski system podatkowy w okresie transformacji ustrojowej (lata 1989-1996), Warszawa 1998, p. 16; Zamierzenia rządu w realizacji planu konsolidacji gospodarki narodowej i budżetu państwa na rok 1989, Finanse 1989, no 1, p. 3-5; A. Komar, Problemy reformy systemu podatkowego, Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny 1987, no 1, p. 5. 13. Art. 6 ustawy z dnia 26 lutego 1982 r. o opodatkowaniu jednostek gospodarki uspołecznionej, tekst jedn. Dz. U. z 1987 r. Nr 12, poz. 77, z późn. zm. 14. Ustawa z dnia 19 kwietnia 1950 r. o wyścigach konnych, Dz. U. Nr 20, poz. 173, z późn. zm. 15. Art. 40 ust. 1 ustawy o grach i zakładach wzajemnych. 16. See: A. Kostecki, Elementy konstrukcji instytucji podatku, [w:] System instytucji prawno-finansowych PRL, t. 3, Instytucje budżetowe, red. M. Weralski, Wrocław 1985, p. 167. 17. Art. 42 ustawy o grach i zakładach wzajemnych. 18. See: A. Kostecki, op. cit., p. 181. 19. Art. 2 ust. 1 ustawy o grach i zakładach wzajemnych. 20. Art. 2 ust. 2 ustawy o grach i zakładach wzajemnych. 365
НАУКОВИЙ ВІСНИК 3 2014 Львівського державного університету внутрішніх справ 21. Art. 2 ust. 3 ustawy o grach i zakładach wzajemnych. 22. See: wyrok Naczelnego Sądu Administracyjnego z dnia 13 grudnia 1996 r., sygn. akt II SA 2499/95, SIP LEX nr 28808. 23. See: wyrok Naczelnego Sądu Administracyjnego z dnia 27 listopada 1997 r., sygn. akt II SA 693/97, SIP LEX nr 31751; wyrok Naczelnego Sądu Administracyjnego z dnia 5 stycznia 2000 r., sygn. akt II SA 1201/99, SIP LEX nr 55021. 24. See: wyrok Naczelnego Sądu Administracyjnego z dnia 5 listopada 1998 r., sygn. akt II SA 1243/98, SIP LEX nr 43175. 25. See: wyrok NSA z dnia 27 listopada 1997 r., sygn. akt II SA693/97, SIP LEX nr 31751; wyrok NSA z dnia 29 kwietnia 1999 r., sygn. akt II SA 411/99, SIP LEX nr 46204. 26. Art. 2 ust. 1 pkt 9 oraz art. 40 ust. 4 ustawy o grach i zakładach wzajemnych dodane przez art. 1 pkt 1 i 19 ustawy z dnia 12 września 1996 r. o zmianie ustawy o grach losowych i zakładach wzajemnych oraz o zmianie innych ustaw, Dz. U. Nr 132, poz. 621. 27. See: uzasadnienie do projektu ustawy o zmianie ustawy o grach losowych i zakładach wzajemnych, druk sejmowy Sejmu III kadencji nr 574, www.sejm.gov.pl. 28. Art. 2 ust. 2a dodany przez art. 1 pkt 3 lit. b ustawy z dnia 26 maja 2000 r. o zmianie ustawy o grach losowych i zakładach wzajemnych oraz o zmianie niektórych innych ustaw, Dz. U. Nr 70, poz. 816. 29. See: wyrok Wojewódzkiego Sądu Administracyjnego w Warszawie z dnia 8 lipca 2004 r., sygn. akt II SA 1204/03, SIP LEX nr 159798. 30. Art. 2 ust. 3 ustawy o grach i zakładach wzajemnych. 31. See: wyrok Naczelnego Sądu Administracyjnego NSA z dnia 4 lutego 1998 r., sygn. akt II SA 1273/97, SIP LEX nr 31706; wyrok Naczelnego Sądu Administracyjnego z dnia 25 stycznia 1999 r., sygn. akt II SA 1559/98, SIP LEX nr 46198; wyrok Naczelnego Sądu Administracyjnego z dnia 16 lipca 1999 r., sygn. akt II SA 841/99, SIP LEX nr 46206; wyrok Naczelnego Sądu Administracyjnego NSA z dnia 6 grudnia 1999 r., sygn. akt II SA 1513/99, SIP LEX nr 45489. 32. See: uzasadnienie do projektu ustawy o zmianie ustawy o grach losowych i zakładach wzajemnych oraz zmianie niektórych ustaw, druk sejmowy Sejmu III kadencji nr 1213, www.sejm.gov.pl. 33. Art. 2 ust. 1 ustawy o grach i zakładach wzajemnych w brzmieniu nadanym na mocy art. 1 pkt 3 lit. a) tiret pierwsze ustawy z dnia 26 maja 2000 r. o zmianie ustawy o grach losowych i zakładach wzajemnych oraz o zmianie niektórych innych ustaw, Dz. U. Nr 70, poz. 816. 34. Art. 2 ust. 1 ustawy z dnia 19 listopada 2009 r. o grach hazardowych, Dz. U. Nr 201, poz. 1540, z późn. zm., dalej jako: ustawa o grach hazardowych. 35. Art. 2 ust. 1 pkt 5a i pkt 10 ustawy o grach i zakładach wzajemnych w brzmieniu nadanym na mocy art. 1 pkt 3 lit. a) tiret drugie i czwarte ustawy z dnia 26 maja 2000 r. o zmianie ustawy o grach losowych i zakładach wzajemnych oraz o zmianie niektórych innych ustaw, Dz. U. Nr 70, poz. 816. 366
Серія юридична 36. Ustawa z dnia 10 kwietnia 2003 r. o zmianie ustawy o grach losowych, zakładach wzajemnych i grach na automatach oraz o zmianie niektórych innych ustaw, Dz. U. Nr 84, poz. 774, dalej jako: nowelizacja z 10 kwietnia 2003 r. 37. Art. 2 ust. 1 pkt 2a ustawy o grach i zakładach wzajemnych dodany przez art. 1 pkt 3 lit. a) tiret pierwsze nowelizacji z 10 kwietnia 2003 r. 38. Art. 2 ust. 1 pkt 2b ustawy o grach i zakładach wzajemnych dodany przez art. 1 pkt 3 lit. a) tiret pierwsze nowelizacji z 10 kwietnia 2003 r. 39. Art. 2 ust. 2b ustawy o grach i zakładach wzajemnych dodany przez art. 1 pkt 3 lit. b nowelizacji z 10 kwietnia 2003 r. 40. See: uzasadnienie do rządowego projektu ustawy o zmianie ustawy o grach losowych, zakładach wzajemnych i grach na automatach oraz o zmianie niektórych innych ustaw, druk sejmowy Sejmu IV kadencji nr 771 and J. Lipski, Opinia prawna na temat projektu ustawy o grach losowych, zakładach wzajemnych i grach na automatach oraz o zmianie niektórych innych ustaw, www.sejm.gov.pl. 41. Art. 2 ust. 3 ustawy o grach i zakładach wzajemnych w brzmieniu nadanym na mocy art. 1 pkt 3 lit. c) nowelizacji z 10 kwietnia 2003 r. 42. See: wyrok Naczelnego Sądu Administracyjnego z dnia 5 lipca 2007 r., II GSK 87/07, SIP LEX nr 368221; wyrok Naczelnego Sądu Administracyjnego z dnia 2 sierpnia 2011 r., sygn. akt II GSK 763/10, SIP LEX nr 1068860. 43. Art. 217 Konstytucji Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej z dnia 2 kwietnia 1997 r., Dz. U. Nr 78, poz. 483, sprost. Dz. U. z 2001 r. Nr 28, poz. 319, z późn. zm. 44. Art. 71 ust. 2 ustawy o grach hazardowych. 45. Art. 4 ust. 2 ustawy o grach hazardowych. 46. Art. 2 ust. 1 ustawy o grach hazardowych. 47. Art. 2 ust. 6 ustawy z dnia 19 listopada 2009 r. o grach hazardowych, Dz. U. Nr 201, poz. 1540, z późn. zm., dalej jako: ustawa o grach hazardowych. 48. Art. 2 ust. 7 ustawy o grach hazardowych dodany na mocy art. 1 pkt 1 ustawy z dnia 26 maja 2011 r. o zmianie ustawy o grach hazardowych oraz niektórych innych ustaw, Dz. U. Nr 134, poz. 779. 49. Art. 2 pkt 11 ustawy o grach hazardowych. 50. See: uzasadnienie do ustawy o grach hazardowych, druk sejmowy Sejmu VI kadencji nr 2481, www.sejm.gov.pl. 51. See more: M. Duda, Taxation of Poker Winnings in Polish Tax Law, Review of Comparative Law 2009-2010, vol. 14-15, p. 127-143. 52. Art. 30 ust. 1 w zw. z art. 32 ust. 2 ustawy o grach hazardowych. 53. Art. 61 ust. 1 w zw. z art. 60 ustawy o grach hazardowych. 54. See: uzasadnienie do ustawy o grach hazardowych,druk sejmowy Sejmu VI kadencji nr 2481, www.sejm.gov.pl. 55. See: G. Łabuda, Wideoloterie jako forma hazardu niereglamentowanego, Monitor Prawa Celnego i Podatkowego 2011, no 10, p. 381-384; por. L. Wilk, W sprawie zakazu hazardu niereglamentowanego, Państwo i Prawo 2013, no 4, p. 60-71. 367
НАУКОВИЙ ВІСНИК 3 2014 Львівського державного університету внутрішніх справ Дуда Михалина. Разногласие вокруг сферы предметного польского налога от игр. Выбранные вопросы Азартные игры в Польше имеют богатую традицию, хотя начали их организовывать позже, чем в других европейских странах. Сравнительно многолетнюю традицию также имеет извлечение государством прибыли от этих игр в виде налоговых льгот и налогов. Цель этой статьи заключается в представлении процесса изменений сфер предметного польского налога от игр в период от 1992 г. до сих пор, а также указание на разногласия, связанных с принятым методом определения этой сферы. В первой части разработки к анализу были подвергнуты положения Закона о играх и взаимного пари, во второй - регулирование действующего Закона об азартных играх. Ключевые слова: Налог от игр, Закон о играх и взаимного пари, Закон об азартных играх. Дуда Міхаліна. Розбіжності навколо сфери предметного польського податку від ігор. Вибрані питання. Азартні ігри в Польщі мають багату традицію, хоча почали їх організовувати пізніше, ніж в інших європейських країнах. Відносно багаторічну традицію також має отримання державою прибутку від цих ігор у вигляді податкових пільг і податків. Податок від ігор в сучасній формі був введений в польську податкову систему відповідно до Закону про азартні ігри і взаємного парі від 29 листопада 1992 р. і функціонує до сьогоднішнього дня.є однією з форм оподаткування обороту, отриманого зі сфери ігор і взаємного парі. Що особливо важливе, ця данина не була введена окремим Законом, а в силі положень, що знаходяться в Законі від 1992 р. про азартні ігри і взаємного парі, тобто через акт, який повинен був замінити як податкове законодавство, так і закон від 1950 р. про кінські перегони, а також з 1976 р. про азартні ігри і тоталізатори. На підставі Закону про ігри і взаємного парі, сфера предмету податку від ігор була вказана непрямим чином, шляхом зазначення податкових баз для різних категорій ігор і взаємного парі. В чинному законі про азартні ігри з 2009 р. були виконані конституційні вимоги законодавчого регулювання елементів податкової структури. У правилах чітко визначений предмет оподаткування ігор, посилаючись одночасно до поняття азартних ігор, як визначено в загальній статті Закону. Таким чином треба прийняти, що оподаткуваню підлягають тільки ті ігри, які були спеціально перераховані у Законі і які організовуються відповідно до принципів, викладених в Законі. Мета цієї статті полягає в представленні процесу змін сфер предметного польського податку від ігор в період від 1992 до сьогодні, а також вказівка на розбіжності, пов'язані з прийнятим методом визначення цієї сфери. У першій частині роботи до аналізу були піддані положення Закону про ігри і взаємного парі, у другій - регулювання чинного Закону про азартні ігри. Ключові слова: Податок від ігор, Закон про ігри і взаємного парі, Закон про азартні ігри. 368
Серія юридична Duda Michalina. The controversy over the material scope of Polish gaming tax. Selected issues. Games of chance have had a rich tradition in Poland.. Gambling as a source of profit for the State in the form of treasury privileges and taxes has also had a relatively long-standing tradition. The aim of this article is to present the change process of the material scope of gaming since 1992 and to demonstrate the controversy related to the accepted way of determining its scope. The first part of the article analyses the provisions of the Law of July 1992 on Games and Mutual Wagering. The second part analyses the provisions of the currently binding Gambling Law of 19 November 2009. Key words: Gaming tax, Law on Games and Mutual Wagering, Gambling Law. Bibliography: 1. Bielecki J., Podwójne życie loterii, Gazeta Sądowa2001, nr 11; 2. Bik M., Kamionowski R., Obrępalski D., Ryszard K., Gry hazardowe. Komentarz do ustawy o grach hazardowych, Warszawa 2013; 3. Bolkowiak I., Polski system podatkowy w okresie transformacji ustrojowej (lata 1989-1996), Warszawa 1998; 4. Drwiłło A., Gliniecka J., Prawno-finansowe zagadnienia gier losowych w Polsce, Finanse 1978, no 9; 5. Duda M., Taxation of Poker Winnings in Polish Tax Law, Review of Comparative Law 2009-2010, vol. 14-15; 6. Komar A., Problemy reformy systemu podatkowego, Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny 1987, no 1; 7. Kostecki A., Elementy konstrukcji instytucji podatku, [w:] System instytucji prawno-finansowych PRL, t. 3, Instytucje budżetowe, red. M. Weralski, Wrocław 1985; 8. Krawczak M., Zakaz urządzania gier hazardowych niewymienionych w ustawie z dnia 29 lipca 1992 r. o grach i zakładach wzajemnych, Monitor Prawa Celnego i Podatkowego 2009, nr 11; 9. Lipski J., Opinia prawna na temat projektu ustawy o grach losowych, zakładach wzajemnych i grach na automatach oraz o zmianie niektórych innych ustaw, www.sejm.gov.pl.; 10. Łabuda G., Wideoloterie jako forma hazardu niereglamentowanego, Monitor Prawa Celnego i Podatkowego 2011, nr 10; 11. Modzelewski W., Podatki obrotowe [w:] System prawa finansowego, t. III, Prawo daniowe, red. L. Etel, Warszawa 2010; 12. Ofiarski Z., Prawo podatkowe, Warszawa 2006; 13. Paardt R., The taxation of Internet gaming and gambling in the European Union, ERA Forum 2009, nr 10; 14. Palczyński L., Gry losowe, Finanse 1980, no 7; 369
НАУКОВИЙ ВІСНИК 3 2014 Львівського державного університету внутрішніх справ 15. Paszkowski W., Loterja i ład społeczny. Przyczynek do sprawy uregulowania stosunków loteryjnych u nas, Warszawa 1917; 16. R. Rybarski, Skarbowość Polski w dobie rozbiorów, Kraków 1937; 17. Schwartz D. G., Historia hazardu, Warszawa 2009; 18. Skowronek G., Prawne aspekty hazardu,wrocław 2012; 19. Wilk L., W sprawie zakazu hazardu niereglamentowanego, Państwo i Prawo 2013, no 4; 20. Zamierzenia rządu w realizacji planu konsolidacji gospodarki narodowej i budżetu państwa na rok 1989, Finanse 1989, no 1. 370