Nearly 1,000 Lithuanian carriers have recently received a demand from the State Tax Inspectorate (VMI) to pay road user fees for vehicles registered in Lithuania. Paradoxically, the government itself acknowledges that the situation arose due to a long-standing legal loophole and an unclear division of responsibilities among agencies, yet it has decided to shift the financial consequences of these errors onto businesses.
Carriers are being urged to pay taxes covering a period of as long as six years within an extremely short timeframe. To make matters worse, the government has not accurately calculated the amount each company owes—it has left that task to the businesses themselves. Companies must independently calculate their debt, report it, and pay it within just two months.
The government’s communication itself raises additional questions. Carriers received the demands from the State Tax Inspectorate, but the letter itself states that if payment is not made by October 1, 2026, it will not be the State Tax Inspectorate but the Lithuanian Transport Safety Administration (LTSA) will file a lawsuit to recover the debts. At the same time, it is the LTSA that is publicly urging carriers to fulfill their obligations as soon as possible. This division of roles among government agencies sends a contradictory message to the business community and resembles a means of exerting pressure rather than a clear, consistent, and cooperative dialogue with the government.
Egidijus Langys, managing partner at AVOCAD and an attorney, emphasizes that the very idea of tax collection is not in dispute—taxes must be paid. However, the method chosen by the state to correct its own mistakes raises serious doubts.“The government publicly acknowledges that for many years there was a legal loophole and an unclear division of responsibility among institutions. However, having admitted its mistake, it is acting as if businesses were responsible for it. Even more questions arise from the fact that the State Tax Inspectorate (VMI) is sending the demand, while the letter itself warns that the Lithuanian Taxpayers’ Association (LTSA) will take the matter to court. Such communication does little to foster trust in the government—on the contrary, it creates additional tension and pressure on businesses,” he notes.
According to the attorney, in such situations, the government should demonstrate leadership and take responsibility not only through words but also through decisions. “If a mistake has been developing for six years, it’s hard to understand why businesses are given just two months to correct it. This is not a dialogue with the business community—it is an ultimatum. Such a practice is difficult to reconcile with the stated goal of creating a stable, predictable, and investment-friendly business environment.”
Government agencies state that the debt may be paid in installments, but only in cases where the company can prove that it is experiencing financial difficulties.
According to E. Langis, this model essentially punishes those who work steadily and responsibly. “A paradoxical situation arises—if a company is doing well, it is required to pay off a six-year debt accumulated due to the government’s mistakes within two months. If it’s doing poorly, it can request a payment plan. This is neither fair nor proportionate. The government’s mistakes should not be financed solely at the expense of businesses.”
The attorney points out that this story is not just about a specific tax or the transportation sector. “The state has the right to collect the taxes owed to it. There is no dispute about that. However, in a state governed by the rule of law, the means by which this is done are no less important. When the state itself acknowledges that the system failed, the responsibility cannot be unilaterally shifted solely onto taxpayers. In such situations, it is essential to seek proportionate solutions rather than immediately threatening legal action,” the lawyer emphasizes.
According to Langis, a logical solution would be to grant businesses a realistic transition period that would correspond to the extent of the government’s own inaction. “If the government has been unable to properly administer this tax for six years, it would be fair to allow the debt to be repaid over a reasonable, extended period. This would be neither a privilege nor state aid. It would simply be a basic acknowledgment of responsibility for its own mistakes and respect for businesses, which cannot be forced to be the sole financiers of the government’s inaction.”
Recently, the government has repeatedly acknowledged that, in certain areas, loopholes in legislation or poor administration have led to situations whose consequences are subsequently passed on to businesses. This practice raises increasing doubts about the consistency and predictability of government agencies’ actions, as well as their ability to take responsibility for their own mistakes.
“Businesses can plan investments, expansion, and job creation only when they can trust the government. When the government, six years later, presents a bill for its own acknowledged mistakes, sets a two-month deadline, and accompanies all of this with threats of legal action, it sends a very dangerous signal. Trust in the government is built not through pressure or an atmosphere of fear, but through responsible, clear, and proportionate decisions. Businesses do not expect privileges, but rather the same level of integrity and responsibility that the government demands of them,” the attorney notes.