Best prices Special offers for members of the PWE book club The cheapest delivery
dr hab. Jacek Wantoch-Rekowski, prof. UMK
ORCID: 0000-0002-1606-7790

Dr hab. prof. UMK Jacek Wantoch-Rekowski, PhD, UMK professor — employed in the Department of Public Finance Law at the Faculty of Law and Administration of the Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń. His achievements include over 100 publications in the field of public finance law in its broadest sense. Author and co-author of scientific monographs and commentaries, mainly on tax law and social security finance. Editor-in-chief of the academic quarterly Prawo Budżetowe Państwa i Samorządu/State and Local Government Budget Law. Legal counsel, member of the Regional Commission for the Violation of Public Finance Discipline Cases at the Regional Chamber of Auditors in Bydgoszcz. His research interests focus on issues concerning social security finances (mainly — social security contributions), taxes and tax law, as well as local government finances.

 
DOI: 10.33226/0032-6186.2020.6.4
JEL: K29, K49

Article 28(1) of the Act of 13 October 1998 on the social insurance system enables the Social Insurance Institution (ZUS) to remit contributions receivable. The payer's application is settled in the form of a decision. The problem of remittance of social security contributions has recently been 'centralised' by the Social Insurance Institution (ZUS) and is dealt with by the Remission Centre. From a theoretical and practical point of view, it is important whether the entity issuing the decision is the Remission Centre (i.e. the head of the Remission Centre) or the Social Insurance Institution acting through the President of the Institution or employees of the Institution acting under the authority of the President of the Social Insurance Institution.

Keywords: social insurance contributions; remission; Polish Social Insurance Institution (ZUS); decisions
DOI: 10.33226/0137-5490.2019.10.6
JEL: K22, K34

The subject of the opinion is the Supreme Court ruling of 13.09.2018, which provides for the legal qualification of a tip – based on the Act on Income Tax from Natural Persons and the Act on the Social Insurance System. The ruling cannot be considered correct because the Supreme Court formulated a thesis on the sources of tax and contributions financing without referring to the regulations, confining itself to the intentions of the "tip provider" as a key factor influencing the rights and obligations of the payee.

Keywords: tip; income tax on natural persons; social security contributions