US tax dispute resolution system: what can be borrowed for Russia?
https://doi.org/10.31429/20785836-14-3-44-49
Abstract
The aim of the work is to highlight the little-studied aspects of public law regulation of the procedure for resolving tax disputes in the United States of America in comparison with the system for resolving similar disputes in the Russian Federation. Despite certain differences both in the normative regulation and in the theoretical concepts of protecting the interests of the state and taxpayers, for the Russian science of the administrative process and the science of financial law, there is a very positive experience in resolving tax disputes in the United States, which, with the proper use of rational elements, can relieve the judicial system of the Russian Federation regarding the resolution of tax cases.
The tasks of the work include the following research areas: analysis of the current state of the doctrine, legislation and practice of resolving tax disputes in the United States, taking into account the latest statistical data; comparison of experience in resolving tax disputes in the United States with domestic experience; development of proposals for organizing a quasi-judicial system for resolving tax disputes in Russia.
An attempt is being made to take the experience of quasi-judicial procedures for the purpose of quickly and efficiently resolving tax disputes that are small in terms of amounts. The features of the judicial and extrajudicial procedures of both countries are taken into account in order to understand the potential effectiveness of the practices proposed for borrowing.
The principal conclusion of this study is the idea that the responsibility of the state to taxpayers for harm caused by illegal and unreasonable actions or inaction of the tax authorities should be perceived not in the private law, but in the public law paradigm, despite the fact that in Russia these norms are part of the civil law. In addition, in order to quickly and without prejudice to the quality of resolution of relatively small tax disputes, it is possible to perceive the experience of the quasi-judicial organization of resolving such cases in the United States.
About the Authors
E. B. Luparev
FGBOU VO "Kuban State University"
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Evgeniy B. Luparev, Dr. of Sci. (Law), Professor, Academician of the Eurasian Academy of Administrative Sciences, Deputy Dean of the A.A. Khmyrov Faculty of Law for Research, Head of the Department of Constitutional and Administrative Law. Author ID: 57200337167, ResearcherID: AAY-9983-2021
Stavropol str., 149, Krasnodar, 350040
Tel.: +7 (861) 262-35-09
A. V. Shvets
FGBOU VO "Kuban State University"
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Alexandra V. Shvets, Cand. of Sci. (Law), Associate Professor of the Department of Constitutional and Administrative Law
Stavropol str., 149, Krasnodar, 350040
References
1. Barri D. [Compensation for damages caused to citizens by the state: aspects of protecting human rights in the USA]. Gosudarstvo i pravo = State and Law. 1993;(1):110–119. (In Russ.)]
2. Egorov S.A. [Political jurisprudence in the USA]. Moscow: Nauka; 1989. (In Russ.)].
3. Efremov L. [The procedure for judicial resolution of tax disputes in the USA]. Khozyaistvo i parvo = Economy and law. 1998;(4):105–109. (In Russ.)]
4. Laro D. [Actual tax disputes in the USA]. Nalogoved = Tax specialist. 2012;(6):71–79. (In Russ.)]
5. Nikerov G.I. [US Administrative Procedural Law]. Gosudarstvo i parvo = State and Law. 1997;(12):96–103. (In Russ.)]
6. Osavelyuk A.M. [Auxiliary state bodies of foreign countries: constitutional and legal aspect]. Moscow: Jurist; 1998. (In Russ.)]
7. Pervukhina S.I. [Foreign experience of differentiation of procedures for pre-trial settlement of tax disputes]. Arbitrazhnyi i grazhdanskii protsess = Arbitration and civil process. 2017;(8):27–33. (In Russ.)]
8. Popkova Zh.G. [The Russian Cohen Doctrine: Problems of Calculating Expenses and Deductions in the Absence of Proper Documents]. Aktual'nye problemy rossiiskogo prava = Actual Problems of Russian Law. 2019;(4):48–54. DOI: 10.17803/1994-1471.2019.101.4.048-054. (In Russ.)]
9. Chertkov O.N., Tokareva O.S. [Resolution of tax disputes in the United States of America]. Evraziiskii Soyuz Uchenykh = Eurasian Union of Scientists. 2020;(1(70)):44–48. DOI: 10.31618/ESU.2413-9335.2020.6.70.561. (In Russ.)]
10. [Modern bourgeois federalism]. Moscow: Nauka; 1978. (In Russ.)]
11. Khamaneva N.Yu. [US Administrative Justice]. Gosudarstvo i parvo = State and Law. 1993;(3):140–147. (In Russ.)]
12. Shesterneva E.P. [Problems of application of judicial tax doctrines in the United States of America on the example of the doctrine of economic essence]. Nalogi = Taxes. 2021;(5):42–45. DOI: 10.18572/1999-4796-2021-5-42-45. (In Russ.)]
13. Jone M. The Internal Revenue Service's Future State initiative and its impact on the tax dispute resolution system of the United States: a dispute systems design perspective. Ejournal of tax research. 2019;(16(3)):824–851.
Review
For citations:
Luparev E.B., Shvets A.V. US tax dispute resolution system: what can be borrowed for Russia? Legal Bulletin of the Kuban State University. 2022;(3):44-49. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.31429/20785836-14-3-44-49
Views:
137
Email this article 