Teret dokazivanja činjenica ili obaveza voditelja postupka da utvrdi materijalnu istinu u postupcima kotrole Uprave za indirektno oporezivanje
Burden of proving facts or the obligation of the person conducting the procedure to establish the material truth in the control procedures of the Indirect Taxation Administration

Summary/Abstract: The aim of this paper is to examine the relationship between the rules on the burden of proof and the principle of establishing substantive truth in value added tax (VAT) control procedures in Bosnia and Herzegovina, with a particular focus on the normative framework and judicial practice. The analysis seeks to determine whether the existing legal solutions ensure legal certainty and consistent application of the law or, conversely, produce legal uncertainty for taxpayers. Methodologically, the paper is based on a normative analysis of relevant regulations, primarily the Law on Administrative Procedure and the Law on Indirect Taxation Procedure, along with a comparative review of their provisions. In addition, an analysis of the case law of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina is conducted in order to determine how these rules are applied in specific cases. The results of the research indicate the existence of both normative and practical inconsistencies between the principle of substantive truth, which obliges the authority to fully and correctly establish the facts, and the rule according to which the burden of proof lies with the taxpayer. Judicial practice further confirms this inconsistency, as in some cases the court insists on the authority’s obligation to establish all relevant facts, while in others it emphasizes the responsibility of the party to prove its claims, often without clearly delineating these obligations. In conclusion, it is suggested the need for clearer normative regulation and more consistent judicial practice, along with the obligation to provide detailed reasoning in decisions, in order to ensure predictability in proceedings and adequate protection of taxpayers’ rights. The results of the research indicate the existence of both normative and practical inconsistencies between the principle of substantive truth, which obliges the authority to fully and correctly establish the facts, and the rule according to which the burden of proof lies with the taxpayer. In conclusion, the paper demonstrates that the existing normative framework and its application may lead to legal uncertainty and the potential undermining of the principles of the rule of law and the right to property. It suggests the need for clearer normative regulation and more consistent judicial practice, along with the obligation to provide detailed reasoning in decisions, in order to ensure predictability in proceedings and adequate protection of taxpayers’ rights.

• Details
• Contents