For several years, the government has attempted to push forward with a fiscal amnesty, but each time it has faced opposition from international institutions. The argument has been the same: such an amnesty undermines fiscal discipline, creates inequality, and undermines trust in the system.
But when one door closes, another often opens. At the end of last year, what was not achieved as "amnesty" was returned as "fiscal peace."
The fiscal package included the adoption of a law on the fiscal peace agreement and another on the cancellation of obligations, accompanied by a careful political narrative: it is not about amnesty, but about the cancellation of obligations. However, the essence remains the same.
Fiscal peace and the cancellation of a significant portion of tax debt, without transparency on the beneficiaries, produces the same consequences that a genuine amnesty would have. The list of beneficiaries was not published, making the process even more unclear for the public and for the businesses themselves.
There was no shortage of international reaction. The International Monetary Fund again openly opposed this approach, warning that such measures undermine fiscal justice and risk damaging trust in the system.
In an economy where revenue collection remains a structural challenge, the message being given to taxpayers is dangerous: those who don't pay can be forgiven, while those who respect the rules are left alone in their burden.
The paradox is that, although the two laws have been approved, they have not yet entered into force. The lack of guidelines and bylaws has created a gray period, where the law exists on paper but not in practice. The Minister of Finance recently stated that the guidelines will be ready in May, but until then, the system remains in limbo. This time gap has created room for ambiguity, selective interpretation and potentially abuse.
In this gap, other institutions are trying to set boundaries. The Financial Intelligence Agency, in a guideline distributed to interest groups, has clarified that the law "On the Fiscal Peace Agreement" does not provide any kind of administrative or criminal immunity for actions related to money laundering, terrorist financing or any other criminal offense.
A necessary clarification, but one that also highlights another problem: when the law requires interpretation to clarify what it does not cover, then its boundaries are not clear enough.
Essentially, the problem is not just this initiative. It is the model. Frequent fiscal changes, combined with a lack of clarity and delays in implementing acts, create an unstable environment for businesses. Those who operate in a regular manner face uncertainty, while those who stay within the limits of the law always find room to maneuver. In this way, "fiscal peace" risks becoming a hidden amnesty, spread out over time and covered in careful terminology.
The effects on the economy of the money that is being attempted to be legalized through camouflage of all kinds are already visible. Informal money has entered circulation in a significant way, creating the illusion of a strong macroeconomic performance. Economic growth looks solid on paper, but in reality it is accompanied by serious distortions.
Real estate prices have increased significantly, while the incomes of ordinary citizens are losing purchasing power.
This contrast is confirmed by the latest data. Despite Albania narrowing the gap in per capita income with countries in the region, and even leaving some of them behind, it remains the country with the highest percentage of families at risk of poverty, at around 37%.
At the same time, countries like North Macedonia have this indicator at around 24%, according to the latest data released by Eurostat. This is a clear signal that economic growth is not translating into well-being for the majority.
In the end, the problem is not just what the law says, but what happens between its lines. When the law is passed today and the guidelines come tomorrow, the space that is created in between is not neutral.
It is filled with uncertainty, interpretations and often vested interests. And in a system where rules change frequently and implementation is delayed, fiscal justice always remains one step behind./Monitor.al/
