"You requested that the chancellor of justice assess the constitutionality of the Motor Vehicle Tax Act," Madise stated in her reply to Kõlvart's query. "You believe that the Motor Vehicle Tax Act may be unconstitutional because the law does not provide for allowances for disabled people, families with many children and those living in rural areas."

The Center chair had also requested an assessment of the law's formal constitutionality, she added.

"Based on current information, there is no reason to believe that the implementation of the motor vehicle tax fails to take into account the ability to pay, or that the tax is so high that vehicle owners would be forced to give up their cars," Madise wrote.

"Property taxes at reasonable rates are permitted under the Constitution," she explained. "A property tax should not be confiscatory, i.e. force someone to give up their car, home or other essential property. If in some cases the motor vehicle tax nonetheless does prove confiscatory, the taxpayer can challenge the tax notice in court and request that the court assess the constitutionality of the tax on a case-by-case basis."

The justice chancellor is currently unaware of any such cases, she added.

"I find that, based on the facts presented in your statement, there is no reason to consider the Motor Vehicle Tax Act unconstitutional," Madise said.

She noted that she would continue analyzing the constitutionality of the taxation of vintage vehicles and the matter of the reimbursement of vehicle registration fees in case of damages.

The justice chancellor noted that in this case, it wouldn't be right or effective to demand that the Riigikogu reconsider the tax law on formal grounds.

"If you believe that some important substantive issue remains unresolved, you may initiate a bill of amendments to the Motor Vehicle Tax Act," she added.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!