{"title":"非正统税收的立法:匈牙利的经验","authors":"Dániel Deák","doi":"10.1556/SOCEC.36.2014.3.2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"To date, a series of non-traditional schemes have proliferated in the area of tax law, challenging the widely accepted principles of tax legislation. Lump-sum or presumptive taxes, redemption fees or tax amnesty, corrective taxes (bank levies), or confiscatory taxes (e.g., banker bonuses) can hardly be reconciled with the hard core of tax legislation that is established on the principles of equality and legal certainty. The present paper discusses these unorthodox types of public charges.","PeriodicalId":112302,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Legislation (Public Law) (Topic)","volume":"65 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-01-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Legislating Unorthodox Taxes: The Hungarian Experience\",\"authors\":\"Dániel Deák\",\"doi\":\"10.1556/SOCEC.36.2014.3.2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"To date, a series of non-traditional schemes have proliferated in the area of tax law, challenging the widely accepted principles of tax legislation. Lump-sum or presumptive taxes, redemption fees or tax amnesty, corrective taxes (bank levies), or confiscatory taxes (e.g., banker bonuses) can hardly be reconciled with the hard core of tax legislation that is established on the principles of equality and legal certainty. The present paper discusses these unorthodox types of public charges.\",\"PeriodicalId\":112302,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"LSN: Legislation (Public Law) (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"65 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-01-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"LSN: Legislation (Public Law) (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1556/SOCEC.36.2014.3.2\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: Legislation (Public Law) (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1556/SOCEC.36.2014.3.2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Legislating Unorthodox Taxes: The Hungarian Experience
To date, a series of non-traditional schemes have proliferated in the area of tax law, challenging the widely accepted principles of tax legislation. Lump-sum or presumptive taxes, redemption fees or tax amnesty, corrective taxes (bank levies), or confiscatory taxes (e.g., banker bonuses) can hardly be reconciled with the hard core of tax legislation that is established on the principles of equality and legal certainty. The present paper discusses these unorthodox types of public charges.