Ex Post Facto And Tax Law: A Complex Relationship

Ex post facto laws are prohibited by many countries' constitutions. However, the applicability of ex post facto to tax laws is a complex issue. While some countries, like Portugal, explicitly forbid the retroactive application of taxes, others, like Australia, have no strong constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws, allowing for some retrospective tax laws. In the US, the Supreme Court has generally rejected ex post facto challenges to retroactive tax liability laws, but has also ruled that the constitutional prohibitions on ex post facto laws do not apply to all retroactive laws, only retroactive criminal laws.

The US Ex Post Facto clause

The US Constitution's Ex Post Facto Clause prohibits the federal government and the states from enacting retroactive laws that criminalise actions that were legal when committed, increase the burden of punishment for a crime, or remove a defence that was available at the time. This prohibition applies to legislative decisions, but not to judicial decisions, as held in the case of Rogers v. City of Columbia (1964).

The Ex Post Facto Clause has been interpreted to apply only to retroactive criminal laws, and not to non-penal tax laws. The Supreme Court has generally rejected ex post facto challenges to tax laws, such as in the cases of Carpenter v. Pennsylvania (1855) and Bankers Trust Co. v. Blodgett (1923). In these cases, the Court ruled that the retroactive imposition of taxes or tax penalties did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause as they were not considered punitive in nature.

However, in Burgess v. Salmon (1878), the Court held that a retroactive tax law that was enforceable through a fine or imprisonment was invalid on ex post facto grounds. The Court emphasised that the ex post facto nature of a law cannot be evaded by giving a civil form to what is essentially a criminal matter.

It is important to note that there are two Ex Post Facto Clauses in the US Constitution: the federal clause and the state clause. While they can be distinguished, the Supreme Court has cited cases interpreting one clause in challenges under the other, implying that they have the same scope.

Retrospective tax laws in France

In France, "lois rétroactives" (retroactive laws) are prohibited by Article 2 of the Code Civil, which states: "Legislation provides only for the future; it has no retrospective operation". However, since the Code Civil does not hold the status of constitutional legislation, it can be overruled by subsequent laws. The Conseil Constitutionnel has determined that retroactive laws can be passed within certain limits, such as in the case of financial or tax legislation, particularly when it is considered to be in the "general interest". This has been demonstrated through a series of decisions made by the Conseil Constitutionnel concerning retroactive tax laws.

In criminal law, ex post facto sanctions are effectively forbidden per Article 112-1 of the French Penal Code, except in cases where the retroactive application benefits the accused person (retroactivity in mitius).

The concept of ex post facto laws is not universally accepted or defined consistently across different countries. For example, Australia has no strong constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws, although narrowly retrospective laws might violate the constitutional separation of powers principle. Australian courts typically interpret statutes with a strong presumption that they do not apply retrospectively. However, there have been exceptions, such as retrospective laws passed in the early 1980s by the Fraser government to prosecute unethical means of tax avoidance ("Bottom of the harbour tax avoidance").

In India, retrospective taxation has been a controversial topic, with the government tabling a bill in 2024 to amend tax laws and scrap the controversial retro tax, which has spooked investors since its passage in 2012. This retrospective tax law, introduced by Pranab Mukherjee in the 2012 budget, amended Section 9 of the Income Tax Act, giving India the right to tax mergers and acquisitions between foreign companies with a majority of underlying assets in India retrospectively, even years after the transaction. This law was a response to a tax case loss at the Supreme Court, where the ruling was in favour of Vodafone. The tax department initially demanded close to Rs 14,000 crore in taxes, interest, and penalties from Vodafone, but India ultimately lost the case at the Court of Arbitration at The Hague.

The annual budget presented by the Indian government typically includes amendments to existing tax laws, which can be either prospective or retrospective. Retrospective taxes are more complex and controversial, as they create an uncertain environment that disrupts normal business operations and undermines the confidence of foreign investors. However, if a retrospective tax is introduced to promote the welfare of taxpayers, it may be welcomed and accepted by the public.

Retroactive tax laws in Australia

Australia has no strong constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws, although narrowly retrospective laws might violate the constitutional separation of powers principle. Australian courts usually interpret statutes with a strong presumption that they do not apply retrospectively. However, retrospective laws designed to prosecute what was perceived to have been a blatantly unethical means of tax avoidance were passed in the early 1980s by the Fraser government.

In general, ex post facto laws are those that have a retroactive effect, applying to events that occurred before the law was in place. In the context of tax laws, ex post facto laws would involve the retroactive application of tax rules or regulations to tax periods that occurred before the law was enacted.

While Australia does not have a strong prohibition on ex post facto laws, it is important to note that there are still limitations and considerations. Australian courts interpret statutes with a presumption against retrospectivity, and any retroactive legislation must respect the constitutional separation of powers. Additionally, international agreements and human rights declarations, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (of which Australia was an original signatory), include prohibitions on holding individuals guilty of acts that were not considered offences at the time they were committed.

In practice, the application of retroactive tax laws in Australia has occurred in specific circumstances. For example, the Fraser government in the early 1980s passed laws to address unethical tax avoidance practices, and similar legislation has been upheld by courts in other countries, such as the United States. However, it is essential to consider the specific context and legal interpretations within Australia's legal system.

Ex Post Facto and tax deduction laws

The Ex Post Facto law prohibits legislatures from retrospectively criminalizing behaviour. However, this prohibition does not apply as strictly to judicial decisions. While the US Supreme Court has generally rejected ex post facto challenges to laws imposing retroactive tax liability, it has been established that the Ex Post Facto Clause does not apply to non-penal tax laws. In Burgess v. Salmon, the Court held that the retroactive application of a tax law that was enforceable through a fine or imprisonment was invalid on ex post facto grounds.

In France, retroactive laws or "lois rétroactives" are technically prohibited by Article 2 of the Code Civil, which states that "legislation provides only for the future; it has no retrospective operation". However, the Conseil Constitutionnel has determined that retroactive laws can be passed within certain limits, such as in the case of financial or tax legislation, particularly when it is considered to be in the "general interest". Similarly, in Australia, while there is no strong constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws, retrospective laws that prosecute unethical means of tax avoidance have been passed.

In Italy, Article 3, paragraph 1, of the Statute of Taxpayer's Rights, prohibits retroactive laws on principle. However, these provisions can be derogated by acts with the force of ordinary law. The Estonian Constitution also prohibits the conviction of an individual for an act that was not considered a criminal offence under the law in force at the time it was committed.

Norway has an "ex post facto" clause in its constitution against retroactive laws. Article 97 of the Norwegian Constitution states that "No law must be given retroactive effect". This means that any changes in the law enacted in a particular year can only apply to subsequent tax years and not the current one. For example, changes made in 2020 would only apply to tax years after 2020, not including the year 2019.

Ex Post Facto and tax avoidance

The Ex Post Facto or retroactive law generally refers to a law that applies retroactively, punishing acts that occurred before the law was passed. While some countries like Norway, France, Italy, and Poland have clauses in their constitutions against retroactive laws, others like Australia, Lithuania, and Finland do not have strong prohibitions. In the case of the latter, retroactive laws may be passed in certain circumstances, including civil matters like taxation.

In Australia, for example, the Fraser government passed retrospective laws in the early 1980s to prosecute unethical means of tax avoidance. Similarly, the French Conseil Constitutionnel has allowed retroactive tax laws within certain limits, particularly when it is considered to be in the "general interest". In the UK, the Criminal Justice Act of 2003, which applies retroactively, has been used to retry individuals acquitted of murder or other serious offences if new and compelling evidence emerges. Taxation laws have also been changed retrospectively to disallow tax avoidance schemes.

In the US, the Ex Post Facto clause has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to apply specifically to legislative decisions, and not judicial decisions. The Court has held that an amendment impacting a currently imprisoned individual does not violate Ex Post Facto if it does not increase the punishment for the crime. Additionally, appellate courts may announce new rules of law but refrain from applying them to the case at hand to comply with Ex Post Facto prohibitions.

While the Estonian constitution prohibits convicting someone for an act that was not a criminal offence when it was committed, it does not expressly forbid ex post facto laws. Instead, the ban is derived from general legal principles and basic rights. Similarly, while the Finnish legal system generally does not permit ex post facto laws, they are not absolutely forbidden, and in civil matters like taxation, retroactive laws may be permissible in certain circumstances.

Frequently asked questions