Part I — Situation overview

The Tisza government submitted its first comprehensive tax package to the National Assembly on Friday, 17 July 2026. The 42-page bill, signed by Finance Minister András Kármán — according to its full title, on the tax measures necessary for the implementation of the Recovery and Resilience Plan, certain government programme points and a government decision — phases out five tax types: the municipal tax (of more than 3,000 municipalities, 25 applied it), the dog-management contribution (16 municipalities), the immigration special tax (which never had any revenue), as well as the carbon-dioxide quota tax and the transaction fee linked to it. According to the prime minister, the previous government too knew about these latter two that they conflicted with EU law, and left the country with some 100 billion forints in repayment and interest burden. The package moreover abolishes the corporate-tax reliefs of the public-interest asset-management foundations performing public tasks (KEKVAs — the circle of foundations established in 2021 with state assets) and the tax-base relief for heritage-protection investments, doubles the air-pollution charge, and introduces a compulsory NAV audit for high-net-worth private individuals. An institutional novelty is that the head of the National Tax and Customs Administration (NAV) may in future not be simultaneously a state secretary of the Ministry of Finance — according to the government, as a guarantee of the tax authority’s operation free from political influence.

Since the announcement the package has partly already taken statutory form, and partly new details have become known. On 18 July the act on making the special tax of petroleum products banded appeared in the Magyar Közlöny (the official gazette) — the rule affecting Mol sets a 50 percent rate for the 2-to-5-dollar price-difference band and an unchanged 95 percent rate for the band above 5 dollars —, and a government decision, likewise of Friday, tasked the finance minister with the review of the regulation and level of the corporate tax, while preserving competitiveness. And by Monday the package’s most impactful element took shape: the closing of the tax loophole of fiduciary asset management — the legal construction allowing assets to be placed under the management of a third party. For asset elements placed under management after 31 August 2026 the previous five-year tax-exemption rule ceases, the movement of assets falls, for tax purposes, under the same treatment as gifting and inheritance, and every fiduciary asset management, as well as private-purpose asset-management foundation, comes under compulsory NAV audit. The proposal is openly linked to EU funds: it was prepared as implementation of the reforms undertaken in the recovery plan, fulfilling one of the conditions of the disbursement of funds after the political agreement of 29 May 2026.

MIAK’s reading: the new government’s first tax package is not a rate-raising but a structure-cleaning package — it affects few people directly, but targets precisely those distortions that over the past decade bent the tax system in favour of privileged actors. The real test will not be the announcement but the predictability of implementation: the credit of a structure-cleaning package comes from itself observing those principles — pre-announced, clear, stable rules — whose absence it reproaches in the previous era’s tax policy.

Part II — Literature foundation

Before turning to MIAK’s proposals, it is worth fixing the interpretive frame. Adam Smith (18th-century Scottish economist, founder of modern economics) in his work The Wealth of Nations fixes four tax maxims — proportionality, certainty, convenience, efficiency —, and specially emphasises that an uncertain tax is worse even than an unequal one, because it makes the collector powerful over the taxpayer: this frame is the basis of MIAK’s G16 programme point, and by this yardstick the five abolished tax types were a textbook violation of the fourth maxim (that collection should not cost more than it brings). John Stuart Mill (19th-century English economist and philosopher, the synthesiser of classical political economy) interprets the principle of equality of taxation as equality of sacrifice — everyone should contribute to public burdens according to their capacity to bear them —, which is directly the fairness argument for closing the fiduciary-asset-management loophole: the equal tax burden of those in the same wealth position is not tightening but the restoration of equality. And Thomas Piketty (French economist, leading researcher of the long-term data of wealth inequality) points out that taxation is not only a revenue instrument but also an institution for getting to know wealth relations and for democratic transparency — the compulsory wealth audit and the data reporting are, in this frame, not merely audit strictness but knowledge production for the community. The detailed literature treatment — by author, with quotations — can be found in the 6.4 Literature in detail section.

Part III — MIAK’s concrete proposal

MIAK proposes three measurable measures to authenticate and further develop the tax package.

3.1 A public tax impact assessment for every tax change (before the package’s final vote)

MIAK proposes that the government publish an itemised impact assessment for every element of the package — from the five phased-out tax types to the fiduciary-asset-management rule: how many taxpayers it affects, how large the expected revenue effect is over five years, and what administrative burden ceases or arises. One of the recurring objections of the tax experts speaking to ATV was precisely that the package arrived without social consultation, unexpectedly. The public impact assessment is the tax-policy application of the I3 legislative-impact-assessment programme point, and the practical form of the Smithian certainty maxim (see 6.4.1): the taxpayer should not learn from the Magyar Közlöny what awaits them.

3.2 An annual, public Smith audit of the tax system (first edition: spring 2027)

The phase-out of the five tax types is a one-off cleaning — MIAK proposes that it become a system. The annual Smith audit under the G16 programme point scores every tax type according to the four maxims, and publicly identifies the worst performers: which taxes have disproportionate collection costs, where uncertainty is greatest, which rule most distorts economic decisions. This would also give an institutional frame for the corporate-tax review now ordered by a government decision to be a criterion-based rather than an ad-hoc decision — the interpretive uncertainty signalled also by Mandiner (rate increase or base broadening?) stems precisely from the absence of a yardstick fixed in advance.

3.3 A predictability rule for special taxes: bands, sunset date, annual review (in the autumn tax package)

The banded structure of the promulgated Mol special tax — the variable rate tied to the price difference — is a step in the right direction compared to the earlier flat-rate levies, because it ties the tax burden to the actual extra margin. MIAK proposes that this logic become the compulsory form of every sectoral special tax: (1) the tax base measurable, tied to an external market factor; (2) a sunset date fixed in legislation for every special tax — a date fixed in advance at which the measure ceases of itself unless the legislator decides otherwise —; (3) an annual public review of the revenue and investment effects. In line with the progressive logic of the G8 programme point, the extraordinary levy is thus tied to an extraordinary situation, and does not become a permanent, unpredictable burden.

The three proposals are bound together by a common principle: the fairness gain of the package — the closing of the loophole, the equal bearing of burdens — is durable only if the institutions of predictability are built up alongside it. By Smith’s certainty maxim, a good tax system is good not because it favours someone, but because everyone knows in advance what they can count on.

Part IV — Expected effects and risks

Dimension Expected effect Risk
Economy administrative burden falls; extra revenue from closing the loophole; the EU disbursement condition is fulfilled keeping the corporate-tax review in suspense may cause investment wait-and-see; extending special taxes worsens regulatory predictability
Society the tax burden of those in the same wealth position is equalised; wealth transparency grows the targeting of the compulsory wealth audit may be disputable — without guarantees the suspicion of selective application takes hold
Public administration the collection apparatus of five tax types is freed up; making the NAV-head post independent is a precedent the short deadline of the fiduciary-asset-management transition (31 August) may bring legal-application uncertainty

The main weighing question is the balance between closing the loophole and legal certainty. The fiduciary-asset-management rule is prospective — it treats already-concluded structures under the five-year rule, new ones under the new order —, which is the correct solution from a legal-certainty standpoint; the risk is that the period before the 31 August deadline triggers a one-off, brought-forward wave of placing assets under management. The other tipping point is the compulsory wealth audit: if the selection criteria are public and algorithmic, the measure is an instrument of the equal bearing of burdens; if they are discretionary, it may be a new form of selective taxation — the uncertainty described by Smith, exposing the taxpayer to the power of the collector.

Part V — Measurability and summary

5.1 What is worth tracking? (proposed KPIs)

MIAK proposes tracking the following performance indicators (KPIs):

  • Administrative burden: the fall in the time spent on tax filing (PwC Paying Taxes methodology) from the current 277 hours per year — target for 2028: below 200 hours;
  • Loophole-closing revenue: the actual annual extra revenue of the fiduciary-asset-management and KEKVA-relief phase-out compared to the impact-assessment estimate — deviation within ±20%;
  • Predictability: the number of tax changes entering into force without a prior impact assessment and at least 30 days of preparation time — target: 0;
  • Wealth-audit transparency: the publication of the public selection criteria of the compulsory NAV wealth audits and the annual publication of the number of audits — yes/no.

5.2 Summary

MIAK’s request to the decision-maker is concrete: before the package’s final vote the National Assembly should receive an itemised, public impact assessment, and from 2027 the tax system should receive an annual evaluation according to a public yardstick — so that the first tax package is not a one-off political gesture but the first step of a predictable tax-policy system. The proposal attaches to two MIAK foundational values: to data-drivenness — because the tax changes are accompanied by a measurable impact estimate and subsequent audit, not by communication promises —, and to transparency — because the publicity of wealth relations and tax reliefs is the precondition of the equal bearing of burdens; the two together distinguish structural reform from selective tax policy.

Part VI — Justifications and further sources

6.1 The press framing by spectrum

The economic band gave the most detailed treatment: Portfolio presented the 42-page bill in a series of articles, with separate analyses on the fiduciary-asset-management rules (“a new era is coming”), on the compulsory NAV audit and on the promulgation of the Mol special tax — its framing is fact-reporting, focusing on the technical content of the rules and the EU-fund link.

The left-liberal and public-affairs band brought the political announcement side: 24.hu and 444.hu put the abolition of the five tax types and the doubling of the air-pollution charge in their headlines, HVG presented the details of the prime-ministerial announcement, and specially recalled that the dog-tax campaign topic had last autumn been the narrative of the previous governing party. ATV asked tax experts: according to Iván Vadász the package does not cause a significant change in the average person’s life, and he objected to the absence of social consultation; Péter Ákos Bod welcomed the step, because the system had until now worked “in a tangled way”.

The pro-government-conservative band highlighted the corporate-tax thread: Mandiner headlined that the government “does touch after all” the corporate tax and reviews its level too — recalling that in the campaign Tisza had denied any intention to raise taxes —, while the article itself also records that a drastic increase is not to be expected, and the government decision also prescribes preserving competitiveness.

6.2 Facts and data

  • The weight of the abolished tax types: municipal tax — 25 applying municipalities out of more than 3,000; dog-management contribution — 16 municipalities; immigration special tax — 0 forints of revenue (24.hu, HVG, government communication).
  • The reason for phasing out the carbon-dioxide quota tax and transaction fee: conflict with EU law, with, according to the government’s communication, some 100 billion forints in repayment and interest-burden risk (HVG).
  • Mol special tax (Magyar Közlöny, 18 July 2026): banded structure — 2–5 dollar price difference: 50%, above 5 dollars: 95%; the National Assembly adopted it with 136 votes in favour and 53 abstentions; entry into force on the 31st day following promulgation (Portfolio).
  • Fiduciary asset management: for elements placed under management after 31 August 2026 the five-year tax-exemption rule ceases; the asset transfer is taxed the same way as gifting/inheritance; every fiduciary asset management and private-purpose asset-management foundation comes under compulsory NAV audit (Portfolio); the deadline is a reform milestone undertaken in the recovery plan.
  • KEKVA relief: the supporting enterprises could until now reduce their corporate-tax base by up to three times the amount paid in — this ceases (András Kármán communication, Portfolio).
  • The Hungarian corporate tax’s 9 percent rate is currently the lowest in Europe (Mandiner, Portfolio); the government decision prescribes the review of the level together with preserving competitiveness.
  • Reference frame: according to MIAK’s G3 programme point the Hungarian average of the time spent on tax filing is 277 hours per year (PwC Paying Taxes), the target being a reduction below 100 hours; the estimated extra revenue of progressive taxation of capital incomes is 200–400 billion forints per year.

6.3 Policy dimensions

  • Economy (programme points) — the structural reform of the tax system: G3 tax-system simplification, G8 progressive capital-income taxation, G16 algorithmisation of Smithian tax principles;
  • Transparency and anti-corruption policy (programme points) — wealth transparency and the phase-out of reliefs: A3 publicity of asset declarations, A1 public-money dashboard;
  • Public administration and e-government (background) — the institutional independence of NAV and the digital simplification of tax administration.

6.4 Literature in detail

6.4.1 Adam Smith: The Wealth of Nations

In Book V of the work Smith fixes the four maxims of taxation: subjects should contribute to the maintenance of the state “as nearly as possible in proportion to their respective abilities”; the tax should be “certain and not arbitrary”; the manner and time of collection should be convenient for the payer; and the tax should be designed to “take out and keep out of the pockets of the people as little as possible over and above what it brings into the public treasury”. His separate warning is that uncertainty is worse than inequality: where the tax level is not clear, the taxpayer is “more or less in the power of the tax-gatherer”. Translated to the present package: the five phased-out tax types were a violation of the fourth maxim (the cost of collection exceeded the revenue), the closing of the loophole is the restoration of the first maxim — the open question is the second maxim, certainty, which the suspension of the corporate-tax review and the extension of the special tax currently weaken.

📖 Source: Adam Smith: The Wealth of Nations (Book V, Chapter II)

6.4.2 John Stuart Mill: Principles of Political Economy

Mill treats the principle of equality of taxation as the fundamental question of the justice of shared public burdens: equality means a contribution not of equal amount but of equal sacrifice — and if anyone bears less than their fair share, someone else must make it up. Mill also, as a commentary on the Smithian maxims, emphasises that a badly designed tax steers capital from more productive to less productive use. The fiduciary-asset-management loophole caused precisely this double harm: the possibility of tax-free asset transfer simultaneously violated the equality of sacrifice (those in the same wealth position bore different burdens) and distorted wealth-planning decisions (the choice of construction was driven by the tax advantage, not by the actual asset-management purpose). The closing of the loophole is, in Mill’s frame, not a new burden but the elimination of the difference paid until now by others.

📖 Source: John Stuart Mill: Principles of Political Economy (Book V, Chapter II)

6.4.3 Thomas Piketty: Capital in the Twenty-First Century

Piketty fixes, as the methodological lesson of researching wealth inequality, that taxation is a double institution: an instrument of the fair distribution of public burdens, and at the same time the institution through which society can get to know its own wealth relations at all — without income-tax returns and asset declarations there would at most be estimates about wealth concentration. He also argues that the return on capital may durably exceed the pace of economic growth, and therefore a progressive capital tax and international data-exchange coordination are needed as a counterweight to wealth concentration. Translated to the Hungarian package: the compulsory data reporting and NAV audit of fiduciary asset managements is, in Piketty’s frame, primarily a transparency institution — the state will now for the first time see at system level how much wealth moves in these constructions —, and this knowledge is the precondition of every later, fact-based wealth-taxation debate.

📖 Source: Thomas Piketty: Capital in the Twenty-First Century

6.5 International comparison

The tightening of fiduciary asset management fits into an international trend: the EU’s anti-money-laundering regulation has for years strengthened the beneficial-owner transparency of trust structures, and the OECD’s tax information-exchange system extends to asset-management constructions too. The yardstick of administrative simplification is Estonia: in the e-Tax system a tax return takes on average 5 minutes, with a 98 percent digital completion rate — compared to the Hungarian 277-hour annual filing time this shows the room to move of the G3 programme point. The Scandinavian experience of progressive capital taxation (Denmark’s 27–42 percent progressive capital tax, Norway’s wealth tax) indicates that within the EU moderate progression did not cause measurable capital flight. In the area of sectoral special taxes, however, Hungarian practice is itself the international negative precedent: the unpredictable, retroactively modified special taxes of the past decade appeared in the risk premium of the investment environment — this is why it is a key question that the new banded Mol tax be paired with a sunset date and annual review.

Economy

  • G3 — Simplification and progressive reform of the tax system
  • G8 — Progressive capital-income taxation
  • G16 — Algorithmisation of Smithian tax principles

Transparency and anti-corruption policy

  • A3 — Publicity of asset declarations
  • A1 — Public-money dashboard

Justice

  • I3 — Legislative impact assessment

Proposed new programme point: Special-tax predictability rule — a compulsory banded tax base, sunset date and annual public review for every sectoral special tax — for the Economy area.

6.7 List of sources

Press sources (MIAK press monitor, 19 July 2026 — topic 3, and 20 July 2026 — topic 4):

Knowledge-base references (literature):

  • 📖 Adam Smith: The Wealth of Nations
  • 📖 John Stuart Mill: Principles of Political Economy
  • 📖 Thomas Piketty: Capital in the Twenty-First Century

MIAK internal materials:

  • MIAK policy area: Economy (programme points; programme point ID: G3, G8, G16)
  • MIAK policy area: Transparency and anti-corruption policy (programme points; programme point ID: A3, A1)
  • MIAK press monitor, 19 July 2026 — topic 3, score: 85/100 (merged in: MIAK press monitor, 20 July 2026 — topic 4, score: 80/100)

Additional public data sources:

  • Magyar Közlöny issues of 17–18 July 2026 (government decision on the corporate-tax review; the act on the petroleum-product special tax)
  • PwC Paying Taxes (tax-administration time comparison), OECD Revenue Statistics

Generation metadata