RETRACTED: Tax procedural proof: problems of theory and practice
https://doi.org/10.52468/2542-1514.2022.6(3).94-108
Abstract
The subject of this study is the legal norms contained in legislation, other legal acts, as well as materials of law enforcement practice that determine the specifics of tax procedural evidence. This article also analyzes the experience of legal regulation of the mechanism of tax procedural evidence, examines the gaps in tax legislation directly related to the topic under consideration.
The purpose of the study is to identify and analyze the features of evidence in the tax process, to study the application of evidence theory in the activities of tax authorities, to develop new ways, means and simplified procedures for effective proof, as well as to prepare appropriate regulatory changes. The objectives of the study are to identify and analyze the advantages and disadvantages of the current state of the regulatory regulation of the means and procedures of tax procedural proof; to study the distribution of the duty of proof from the position of the presumptions proclaimed in tax legislation, the established grounds for exemption from proof, as well as the blocks of circumstances formed by law enforcement practice that are subject to proof, respectively, by the tax authority and a participant in the tax process controlled by it; formulation of the author 's position on the general rule of burden of proof distribution and proposals for adaptation in the Tax Code of the Russian Federation constructions of grounds for exemption from proof according to the presented concept; allocation of stages of evidentiary activity carried out within the framework of the tax process.
Methodology. Within the framework of this article, general scientific methods were applied in the framework of comparative, logical and statistical research and analysis of law enforcement and judicial practice in the field of tax process.
The main results. Within the framework of the study, a number of issues related to the chosen topic were considered. First of all, it is necessary to understand that by proving in the tax process, one should consider the procedural activities of authorized participants in the tax process for collecting, researching and evaluating evidence, ensuring the adoption of legitimate and justified procedural decisions on issues that are subject to the regulation of tax legislation. The general subject of proof in the tax process is the circumstances relevant to the decision of the tax authority in the cases provided for by the legislation on taxes and fees, determined by the tax authority based on the substance of the relationship and the positions of its participants in accordance with the applicable rules of substantive law in cases where such circumstances are not defined by the legislation on taxes and fees. For the general the rule for distributing the burden of tax procedural proof is to adopt the following judgment: "Each participant in the relationship regulated by the legislation on taxes and fees, in order to comprehensively and most fully establish the facts relevant to the decision of the tax authority in the cases provided for by the legislation on taxes and fees, must prove the circumstances to which he refers as the basis of his procedural position (claims, objections)."
Conclusions. The interests of the state in replenishing the budget should not lead to violations of the rights of an unlimited number of taxpayers. To do this, it is necessary to apply the norms on the presumption of innocence and increased standards for proving an offense committed by a taxpayer in tax disputes. The imposition by the tax authorities of their approach to regulating tax legal relations is going beyond the powers of the tax authorities. The application in practice of the presumption of taxpayers' guilt in committing a tax offense, which is not provided for by law, violates not only the private interests of taxpayers, but also represents an encroachment on public interests, on public order, since obvious injustice is being done.
About the Authors
I. V. Glazunova
Dostoevsky Omsk State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Irina V. Glazunova – PhD in Law, Associate Professor; Associate Professor, Department of State and Municipal Law. RSCI SPIN-code: 9844-8842; AuthorlD: 297941
55a, Mira pr., Omsk, 644077
D. S. Sheptunov
“Arbitration” LLC
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Danil S. Sheptunov – Lawyer. RSCI SPIN-code: 9013-8972
31, Nagibina ul., Omsk, 644033
References
1. Kirilina V.E. System of tax law: problems of determining the elemental composition. Finansovoe pravo = Financial law, 2011, no. 11, pp. 32–34. (In Russ.).
2. Kirilina V.E. Subject of tax law as legal category. Finansovoe pravo = Financial law, 2004, no. 3, pp. 31–35. (In Russ.).
3. Ivanova V.N. Correlation of legal categories "tax process" and "tax production" and features of their implementation in the Tax Code of the Russian Federation. Yurist = Lawyer, 2001, no. 2, pp. 67–70. (In Russ.).
4. Gudimov V.I. Tax process. Finansovoe pravo = Financial law, 2003, no. 5, pp. 23–27. (In Russ.).
5. Degot B.E. The concept of the tax process. Zakon i pravo = Law and Law, 2005, no. 3, pp. 54–55. (In Russ.).
6. Glazunova I.V. The tax process as a form of law enforcement. Vestnik Omskogo universiteta. Seriya “Pravo” = Herald of Omsk University. Series “Law”, 2011, no. 2, pp. 51–58. (In Russ.).
7. Gorshenev V.M. (ed.). Theory of legal process. Kharkiv, Vishcha shkola Publ., Kharkiv University Publ., 1985. 192 p. (In Russ.).
8. Dementiev I.V. Tax law enforcement: changing legal paradigms. Zhurnal rossiiskogo prava = Journal of Russian Law, 2019, no. 8, pp. 96–106. DOI: 10.12737/jrl.2019.8.9. (In Russ.).
9. Vinnitskiy D. V. Problems of legal regulation of procedural and procedural relations in Russian tax law, in: Sovremennye problem vzaimodeistviya protsessual’nogo i material’nogo prava Rossii: teoriya i praktika, materials of the all-Russian Scientific and practical conference (April 17-18, 2003), pt. 1, Yekaterinburg, 2004, pp. 92–93. (In Russ.).
10. Krasyukov A.V. The influence of judicial practice on the process of proof in tax law enforcement. Nalogi = Taxes, 2014, no. 3, pp. 35–38. (In Russ.)
11. Lazareva N.P., Usova S.E. Tax process, Textbook. Khabarovsk, Pacific National University Publ., 2015. 117 p. (In Russ.).
12. Dolgopolov O.I. Proofs and evidences on tax disputes. Moscow, Nalogovyi vestnik Publ., 2011. 288 p. (In Russ.).
13. Slesarev S.A. Proving in the case of a tax offense, Cand. Diss. Omsk, 2009. 270 p. (In Russ.).
14. Korshunov N.M., Eriashvili N.D. (eds.). Tax process, Textbook for university students studying in the specialties “Jurisprudence”, “Taxes and taxation”, 2nd ed. Moscow, YuNITI-DANA Publ., 2017. 375 p. (In Russ.)
15. Dementiev I.V. Proving and proofs in tax law enforcement. Rossiiskoe pravosudie = Russian Justice, 2018, no. S1, pp. 252–260. (In Russ.).
16. Glazunova I.V. The specifics of evidence in the tax process. Pravoprimenenie = Law Enforcement Review, 2019, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 63–74. DOI: 10.24147/2542-1514.2019.3(4).63-74. (In Russ.).
17. Pepelyaev S.G. Tax ostracism. Nalogoved = Tax Specialist, 2020, no. 2, pp. 4–7. (In Russ.).
18. Giddens A. Fate, Risk and Security, in: Giddens A. Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age, Cambridge, Polity Press, 1991, pp. 109–143.
19. Luhmann N. The Concept of Risk, in: Luhmann N. Risk: A Sociological Theory, Berlin, New York, De Gruyter Publ., 1993, pp. 1–31.
20. Karapetov A.G., Kosarev A. Standards of proof: analytical and empirical research, appendix to the Herald of Economic Justice of the Russian Federation No. 5/2019. Moscow, Zakon Publ., 96 p. (In Russ.).
21. Lysenko E.D. The principle of conscientious tax administration. Education and Law, 2020, no. 7, pp. 134–137. (In Russ.).
22. Berezin M.Yu. Assessment of evidence in the tax process. Khozyaistvo i pravo = Economy and law, 2019, vol. 5 (508), pp. 86–92. (In Russ.).
23. Treushnikov M.K. Forensic evidence, Monograph, 3rd ed. Moscow, Gorodets Publ., 2004. 272 p. (In Russ.).
24. Kleinman A.F. The latest trends in the Soviet science of civil procedural law, Essays on history. Moscow, Moscow University Publ., 1967. 119 p. (In Russ.).
25. Sakhnova T.V. Regulation of evidence and evidence in civil proceedings. Gosudarstvo i pravo = State and Law, 1993, no. 7, pp. 52–60. (In Russ.).
26. Vyshinskii A.Ya. Theory of judicial evidence in Soviet law, 2nd ed. Moscow, Legal Publishing house, 1946. 248 p. (In Russ.).
27. Tribe L.H. Trial by Mathematics: Precision and Ritual in the Legal Process. Harvard Law Review, 1971, vol. 84, no. 6, pp. 1329–1393.
28. Dementyev I.V. Proofs and proving in the tax process. Zhurnal rossiiskogo prava = Journal of Russian Law, 2011, no. 1 (169), pp. 82–88. (In Russ.).
29. Belov V.M. Abuse of law in the tax sphere. Arbitrazhnaya praktika = Arbitration practice, 2002, no. 1, pp. 33–40. (In Russ.).
30. Tyutin D.V. Tax control, responsibility and protection of taxpayers' rights. Moscow, Kontrakt Publ., 2014. 216 p. (In Russ.).
31. Belysheva A.A. The problem of the correlation of the subject of proof and the grounds for exemption from proof. Vestnik Novgorodskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta = Bulletin of the Novgorod State University, 2004, no. 29, pp. 117–120. (In Russ.).
32. Nesadurai H.E. (ed.). Globalisation and Economic Security in East Asia: Governance and Institutions, London, Routledge Publ., 2005. 288 p. DOI: 10.4324/9780203086155.
33. Volosova N.Y. The concept and legal essence of witness immunity. Vestnik Orenburgskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta = Bulletin of Orenburg State University, 2009, no. 3 (97), pp. 48–53. (In Russ.).
34. Burnysheva L.V. Proofs and proving during tax control. Vestnik Omskogo yuridicheskogo universiteta = Bulletin of the Omsk Law Institute, 2011, no. 3 (16). pp. 11–14. (In Russ.).
35. Reshetnikova I.V. The course of evidentiary law in Russian civil proceedings. Moscow, NORMA Publ., INFRA-M Publ., 2000. 279 p. (In Russ.).
36. Nagornaya E.N. Tax disputes: evaluation of evidence in court, Monograph. Moscow, Yustitsinform Publ., 2009. 320 p. (In Russ.).
Review
For citations:
Glazunova I.V., Sheptunov D.S. RETRACTED: Tax procedural proof: problems of theory and practice. Law Enforcement Review. 2022;6(3):94-108. https://doi.org/10.52468/2542-1514.2022.6(3).94-108
Views:
400
Email this article 