Abstract

Th e verdict refers to liability of a person who profi ts from working on account book, and at the same time, does activities of tax counselling without eligibility. According to the court, the defendant is not guilty based on a mistake regarding awareness of the off ence. According to the glossator, the court improperly refused justifi cation of the charge of the off ence which depends on doing activities of tax counselling without eligibility. Th e sanction envisioned in specifi c regulations cannot be excluded in a situation when the defendant has fragmentary knowledge on tax regulations and wrongly interpreted those regulations. Although the glossator criticizes the verdict, the fact of recognition by the court of such case is positive. It is crucial to acknowledge the need to open a discussion regarding the scope of liability of people who run a regulated business without eligibility, because it will help by educating those who wish to run such business without gett ing familiarized with regulations regarding tax advisors.