Bulgaria: Constitutional Court revokes the unified account for tax payments

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Garden, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement


Bulgaria: Constitutional Court revokes the unified account for tax payments

koleva.jpg

Rossitza Koleva

The amendments in the legislation in 2012 which resulted in the inability of physical persons and legal entities to specify which of their obligations towards the tax authorities they pay off contradict the Constitution. This is formulated in a decision of the Constitutional Court from February 5 2014. This decision practically revokes the principle of functioning of the unified tax-insurance account which was established during the GERB government with the idea to minimise bureaucracy. As a consequence, from the beginning of 2013 each payment done by physical persons and legal entities towards the state effectively meant paying off the oldest obligation, regardless of whether it was for taxes or contributions. As these two payments have different legal bases, they also have different legal consequences. The insurance contributions do not have the character of a tax since, when paid, the insured receives the right to be covered by social and health insurance (which is guaranteed by the Constitution), while taxes are due state receivables. According to the Constitutional Court right now the payments of the tax payers enter a single account, without being classified by tax type and insurance installments.

With this ruling of the Constitutional Court, another amendment is considered as contradictory to the Constitution, that is the amendment which ruled out the obligation of the National Revenue Agency to transfer the incomes from contributions in the relevant accounts of the National Insurance Institute and the Health Fund, by the end of each working day. According to the analysts, the lack of separation between contributions and tax revenues creates a certain risk that these funds are not used for the purpose for which they were paid. This results in conditions allowing for the possible violation of the constitutional rights of citizens to social and health security.

Two options are being discussed as solutions. The first option is the unified account to be divided into four separate accounts – one each for state taxes, for social security contributions, additional obligatory pension fund and health contributions. In all four of them the first to be paid off is the oldest by date. The second option discussed is to have one account but with four different codes for each type of payment.

Rossitza Koleva (rossitza.koleva@eurofast.eu)

Eurofast Global, Sofia Office

Tel: +359 2 988 69 78

Website: www.eurofast.eu

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

Around 450 client-facing roles are due to be axed next week, it has been reported
The OECD may be making a mistake if a 2029 review is intended to outlast Trump in the hope of more favourable treatment from the US Democrats
Nexdigm has invested in Singapore-based infer360, a TP intelligence product designed by ex-PwC partners
Awards
ITR is delighted to reveal all the shortlisted nominees for the 2026 Americas Tax Awards
Despite initial hopes that the reporting obligation had been suspended, compliance challenges brought by Brazil’s indirect tax reform are very much a reality
As tax authorities embrace AI and governments weigh pillar two reforms, Latin America is developing a more connected and internationally focused tax agenda
Advisers with pre-existing corporation tax or self-assessment accounts must now register or risk enforcement action from HMRC
India's tax authorities are increasingly scrutinising the rationale behind cross-border structures
Sharmila Sanmugam's move from industry to WTS UK offers an early glimpse into how the fledgling firm hopes to compete with larger rivals
Historical claims involving KPMG Australia's tax practice have surfaced as the firm battles a separate parliamentary inquiry into its handling of whistleblowers
Gift this article