Search

Copyright of Environmental & Social Management Journal / Revista de Gestão Social e Ambiental is the property of Environmental & Social Management Journal and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The application of sanctions is a certain summary of the perception that a person has committed an offense. But before the direct application of sanctions, it is necessary to form a vision regarding the type of responsibility. That is, the construction of financial responsibility can be used, but as a certain generic model that unites institutional or sub-sectoral varieties of responsibility. At the same time, characterizing the tax liability consistently in the assessment of its nature and consequences, distinguish not one of the stages of the tax liability (payment of taxes and fees), but the whole construction of the tax liability (accounting-payment-reporting). A systematic view of the construction of tax liability involves both an assessment of the behavior of obligated persons (payers of taxes and fees, etc.) and subjects of authority. The complexity of social relations, which express the peculiarities of foreign economic activity, determines the clear demarcation of these relations into certain sectors, the basis of whose regulation are precisely the branch characteristics of the subject and the method of the corresponding grouping of legal norms. It is necessary to distinguish between sanctions that are applied as a result of financial responsibility and sanctions that have a monetary nature but are regulated by other branches. Fines and interest are tools that are used in both private and public law. This involves, depending on the purpose, the subject of regulation and the application of not just public-law or private-law methods, but the tools of the relevant industry or sub-industry (economic law, customs law, money circulation, tax law). In this sense, we would like to distinguish between the occurrence of adverse consequences for payers and the application of sanctions to them. The use of a penalty refers to the regimes of adverse consequences. But, it is unlikely that there is a reason to equate penalties and sanctions (fines). The basis for applying a sanction (fine) is illegal behavior, commission of an offense. The basis for the application of a penalty is the untimely or incomplete fulfillment of the tax obligation. The determination of the penalty in the analysis of such issues must be connected with the relevant powers of the supervisory body. That is, forming the competence of the subject of power, the controlling body, the state delegates to it not only the right to implement certain measures, but also the imperative duty to implement such a right. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The source of the State Budget is Taxes. Tax is a mandatory contribution that is coercive because it is regulated by law. One of the tax collection systems is self-assessment, where taxpayers are given the freedom to pay and report their taxes independently, the fiscal officer supervises and checks the tax returns reported by taxpayers every year. This difference in opinion on the results of the examination between taxpayers and tax officers is what raises the problem of tax disputes. The problem of tax disputes has existed from the Dutch colonial era to the present. The Tax Court is the body that decides tax dispute cases, the name and duties of the tax court have changed from time to time and with the decision number 26/PUU-XXI/2023 concerning the Tax Court. The authority of the tax court changed to the full authority of the Supreme Court. This article concludes that the Tax Court developed over time, and along with tax reform the Tax Court also underwent reform with the transfer of organizational, administrative, and financial coaching authority to the Supreme Court (MA). With this transfer of authority, it is hoped that the Tax Court can decide tax dispute cases fairly and have legal certainty for the parties to the dispute. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The tax revenue target which entailed by the Directorate General of Taxation (DJP) every year is always increasing. However, in the last 5 years tax revenues are not always achieved. One solution is to increase tax revenues by way of aggressive action against the taxpayer, which measures the tax collection by the law is carried out both persuasive and repressive. Tax collection action occurred because his existing differences in interpretation between the DJP as the agency authorized to issue Tax Assessment Letter (SKP) with taxpayer, as an individual or entity that receives SKP. If this happens, taxpayer can make legal effort to appeal to the tax court related to decisions made by the DJP. Taxpayer objection filed by the above decree issued by the DJP SKP is called the tax dispute. If the action taken by the DJP is very aggressive in terms of collecting tax revenue, it is thus a tax dispute that occurred in Indonesia will increase. Increasing cases of tax disputes would be costly, time, and effort both issued by the DJP or by taxpayer. One of the alternative solutions that may be made by both parties to get a Win-win Solution is to Alternative Dispute Resolution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This research aims to analyze the causes of tax disputes over shareholder loans. This research is also intended to provide recommendations for minimizing the occurrence of tax disputes over loans from shareholders. This research is qualitative research with a case study approach and was carried out using content analysis of tax court decisions and analysis of interviews with the Fiscus and Taxpayers. Loan disputes from shareholders consist of formal disputes and material disputes. The results of this research show that legal loan disputes from shareholders occur due to the implementation and application of tax regulations. In Contrast, material disputes relate to loan terms, debt ratios and interest rates. Therefore, this research provides a solution for the Directorate General of Taxes (DGT) and Taxpayers to reduce loan disputes from shareholders occurring again. DGT can make policies and regulations related to cash pooling and loan interest rates. Solutions that can be given to taxpayers are holding training and Focus Group Discussions (FGD) related to taxation, actively consulting with Account Representatives (AR), and paying attention to formal provisions for transactions even though they are carried out between companies of the same group. The limitation of this research is that there was a likelihood that data was not included in this research or cannot be read because the decision results are the results of manual scans downloaded from the Tax Court website. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the article, the author notes that the relations arising between the subjects of public and private law in the process of financial activity of the state, are multidimensional in nature and in their social, political and legal content are conflicting. And these conflicts are caused primarily by contradictions between private and public property interests. Conditioned by the implementation and enforcement of public-law interests, the desire of an authority subject to seize the financial means of a private subject becomes a consequence of the objectively existing contradiction between public and private interests. The taxpayer counteracts his subjective right – the right of ownership, which mediates the realization of his legitimate interest – the interest of owning, using and disposing of his property – to the demands of public authorities. Resolution of such conflict is possible through legalization of financial claims of public authorities on the basis of legislative consolidation of strictly defined conditions, grounds and procedure for the recovery of private funds. The law for objective and subjective reasons is not free from gaps, which the legislator is objectively unable to provide. In addition, the reality is that in the Ukrainian conditions the process of building a tax system is largely haphazard, with the absence of a definite program and direct dependence on the needs of the state budget. Application of tax legislation in practice reveals the presence of contradictions with previously adopted acts of tax legislation. Due to these circumstances, the conflict of interests in the sphere of tax legal relations lays the basis for the transition of a controversy to another stage, characterized by the emergence of different initial positions of the parties in the legal assessment of the essence of disputed tax-legal norms and, accordingly, the scope of their rights and obligations. The occurrence forms the basis for the emergence of a tax dispute, because it requires a solution, the implementation of which is impossible without recourse to the competent authorities of the state. In this regard, before the application of an interested person to a jurisdictional body, it is impossible to talk about the presence of a dispute. A tax dispute is a certain situation in the development of a conflict in the sphere of tax legal relations, or rather one of its stages – a stage aimed at resolving a conflict.

It is extremely important for tax compliance to fulfill their tax obligations on time and completely by taxpayers. Various regulations are made in order to increase tax compliance in the legislation of many countries. One of the these regulations was accepted for this purpose in Turkish Tax Law in 2016 is the institution of Invitation to Explanation. This study was written in order to evaluate whether the institution in question serves this purpose. In this study, the effect of the institution of invitation to explanation on tax compliance in the light of the survey data made to 300 people consisting of Sworn-in Certified Public Accountants, Certified Public Accountants and accounting professionals in Denizli province in Turkey; Factor analysis was applied within the framework of three variables: tax compliance, institution of invitation to explanation and trust to the institution of invitation to explanation. According to the hypothesis of the research, there is a negative relationship between the level of tax compliance and the level of not being able to adapt to the institution of invitation to explanation. Although the results confirm the proposed hypotheses, it has been determined that trust in the institution of invitation to explanation is not a moderator variable in the relationship between tax compliance and invitation to explanation.

The author notes in the article that an increase in the number of tax disputes is influenced by many factors, including the constantly changing tax laws of Ukraine, low legal culture of taxpayers, the lack of professional training of representatives of tax authorities involved in tax audits, as the tax authority must correctly assess the circumstances, available facts and correctly apply to the facts of the current legal provisions, while preventing the abuse of power in making the relevant decision, which must be based on the public interest. A qualitative legislative regulation of the indisputable procedure for the collection of financial penalties will occur when financial penalties will be charged incontestably only in the absence of reasonable objections of the taxpayer, filed within the prescribed legal deadlines, that is, in the absence of a tax dispute. Finding a reasonable balance between the rights of taxpayers and the powers of the tax authorities should come to the fore when making changes to the tax legislation. The basis for achieving a balance between the interests of taxpayers and tax authorities can be served by proper explanatory and informational work. The state should develop a set of special measures to adapt taxpayers and employees of the tax authorities themselves to the action of the new tax legislation, regarding the corresponding change in their mentality, improvement of business cooperation and mutual understanding between them, increasing their responsibility for the performance of their tax obligations to the state and the realization of the rights provided by law. The institution of preliminary conclusions of tax authorities is proposed, which will simplify the assessment of tax losses by taxpayers in the planning of economic activities. The taxpayer submits an inquiry about the tax consequences of planned transactions and transactions with future counterparties for their riskiness. The tax authority then prepares and gives an opinion within two weeks.

The subject of research is the study of mediation procedure and embedding of mediation techniques in such a specific area of relations, the participants of which are the tax authority and the taxpayer. The settlement of tax disputes is quite understandable, since this mechanism allows to keep an economic entity on the market, on the one hand, and to replenish the state budget on the other.The purpose of the article is to confirm or disprove hypothesis that the current mechanism of pre-trial settlement of disputes established in the Russian Tax Code does not correspond to the techniques of the mediation process. The methodological basis of the research was formed by general scientific methods of cognition, which include the principles of objectivity and system analysis of the information collected during preparation of the publication. At the same time private scientific methods were also used in the work, including descriptive and comparative legal methods, which made it possible to use the practices of foreign states in terms of the use of mediation procedures. The author analyzes the official data published by the tax authority, regarding the number of disputes considered over the period of the past three years.The main scientific results, scope of application. The study made it possible to gain new knowledge in the field of legal regulation of mediation. The presented foreign experience demonstrates that at present Russia is only at the stage of formation of mediation. Most people do not yet understand what exactly the advantages of mediation. The existing procedure for the judicial settlement of a dispute attracts its participants due to the fact that the current state fees are very low compared to their foreign counterparts. All kinds of legislative transformations lead to an ambiguous interpretation of legal norms, which often defy literal interpretation, followed by conflicts in law enforcement. Since the practice of using mediation sessions is not widespread at present, a large number of debatable questions arise about the procedure for conducting mediation, the possibility of fiscal body participation, determining the categories of disputes in which negotiation techniques can be applied.Conclusions. Mediation is a systemic process that allows constructive negotiations between the parties involved in the dispute in order to resolve the problem and possibly reach an agreement on the settlement of the dispute. At the same time, it is emphasized that the lack of law enforcement practice complicates the process of researching the institution of tax mediation. The role of a mediator in legal relations (with the tax authority as a participant) is a person who must create a constructive atmosphere for discussing the conflict; adhere to the principles of mediation; assist in finding solutions without expressing his opinion on the agenda. This role of mediator is not adequately reflected in the legislation in relation to tax disputes.

Subject and Purpose of the Article: In this research, the factors affecting the adjustment of the diagnostic tax of legal entities in the tax litigation system have been studied through the legal-oriented artificial intelligence approach in order to reduce the tax dispute and timely collection of taxes.Research Method: The research data has been collected through the databases of the Tax Affairs Organization and referring to the taxpayers' tax files. The statistical population of the study includes those Legal entities of South Khorasan that have submitted their performance tax returns and their taxes have been finalized in the tax dispute resolution authorities. Screening method was used to select the sample and 162 companies were selected as the final sample by applying the mentioned conditions.Research Findings: Tax disputes, due to “non-compliance with the rules of writing of legal offices”‌‌, “‌‌lack of evidence of reported expenses”‌‌ and “‌‌inconsistency of accounting standards with tax laws”‌‌, respectively, more than other factors, cause the correction of diagnostic tax.Conclusion, Originality and its Contribution to the Knowledge: Utilizing the results of this research provides the basis for reducing the disputes in the tax litigation system and ultimately the correct identification and timely collection of tax revenues.

Objective - The high tax administration loss rate sparked various speculations in Society. This study aims to determine the factors that led to the defeat of the tax administration in the Indonesian Tax Court. Methodology/Technique - Simple random sampling is used to obtain 1,000 samples of decisions on appeal disputes which is three times the minimum sample size. The logit model is used to find out whether the independent variable affects the dependent variable. The linear probability model is also used to test whether the Logit Model is robust. Findings - The estimation of results shows that the interaction between the tax dispute resolution period and the type of tax, as well as the number of representatives of the tax authorities, had a positive and significant impact on the loss of the tax administration in the prosecution. Novelty - No economic study has comprehensively analyzed the determinants of administrative defeat in the Indonesian Tax Court. This study uses data that have not been used in previous studies. The information includes evidence at audits/objections and appeals, types of taxes, tax dispute resolution periods, interactions between dispute resolution periods and evidence at audits/objections and requests, interactions between dispute resolution periods and types of taxes, interactions between periods dispute resolution, types of taxes and evidence at examination/objection and appeal, initial value, gender of judges, representatives of taxpayers and representatives of tax authorities in court. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Tax Dispute Settlement in the Tax Court has not provided a sense of justice and legal certainty and is only through litigation that is win-lose (win-lose). Settlement of tax disputes through litigation is less useful because the process is long and lengthy, besides that tax disputes continue to increase. The existing tax dispute resolution methods do not reflect the dispute resolution process that is simple, fast, low cost, and does not provide a sense of justice and legal certainty. Alternative tax dispute resolution is through a mediation process, but in this process there is no norm that regulates it. The purpose of this study is to find out how the mediation arrangement for tax dispute settlement in the Tax Court should be in the future. The research method used is a normative legal research method with a statutory approach, a historical approach, a concept approach and a comparative approach. The legal materials used consist of primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials with the technique of collecting legal materials, namely through library research. The technique of analyzing legal materials is carried out by qualitative juridical methods. The results of the study indicate that the settlement of tax disputes through mediation can be regulated in the Tax Court Law by examining the Ordinary Procedure prior to the examination of the subject matter of the dispute, and mediation can be carried out for certain types of tax disputes, so as to achieve a simple, fast and low-cost dispute resolution for the taxpayers. disputing parties, and can reduce the number of disputes that must be examined and decided by the Tax Court. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper discusses the problems of conflicts that may be from time to time initiated and settled in the field tax legal relations. The emphasis is placed on the suggestion that the evolution of scientific concepts of conflict is based on the interdisciplinary approach: the paper concludes on the impossibility of separating the philosophical, social, psycholinguistic and legal aspects of the conflict. Complex and systematic analysis of the „conflict” category using the integrative approach has been performed as part of the research. Differentiated state-of-art approaches to the conflict as a subject of scientific analysis may be classified into two primary groups: 1) the approaches, where the conflict is considered in a narrow specific sense; 2) the approaches where the conflict is studied from interdisciplinary perspective. It is determined that any conflict is based on certain confrontation that plays a systemically important framework role both for individual types of conflicts, and for different level of scientific conflict studies. Nevertheless, is concluded that the presence of such confrontation only creates prerequisites for possible behaviour, while the interpersonal relations – i.e. the social category – are pivotal for individual choice of specific communicative interaction strategy. The legal nature and attributive properties of tax conflicts are also discussed from the financial law perspective. The paper distinguishes five specific groups of factors that confirm the actual presence of conflict tax legal relations. The special attention is paid to the tax dispute characterization (as one of the tax conflict development stages) and the remedies available for taxpayer rights protections. In particular, the paper discusses the issues of the taxpayer legal self-defense as the guaranty of subjective rights exercise and lawful interests protection in legal relations as a key for prevention of tax conflicts and disputes. Finally, the reasons are given to substantiate the conclusion that the tax dispute basically comes down to a mechanism of guaranteeing the interested party’s subjective rights enforcement and the balance of public and private interests in the field of taxation.

Discussions of tax disputes in courts are characterized by certain peculiarities. These discussions gain special significance because these have implications for the economic stability of the country and the rights of the citizens. After all, unlike the disputes over other laws and regulations introduced by the government that affect an individual only in specific aspects, tax liabilities, being financial in nature, influence all the activities of a person throughout their lives because taxing the income of a person is a substantial and carefully designed mechanism of the state that interferes in a person’s activities. In view of the foregoing, this part of the article deals with the peculiarities of discussing tax disputes in court, its existing practice, the experience of other countries, and on that basis, analyses the existing problems of legislative regulation of tax disputes and ensuring their finalization to draw certain conclusions.

In the article, the author proposes under the protection of the rights of the taxpayer to understand his actions (in some cases inaction), which he commits in accordance with the norms of tax legislation, on the one hand, and law enforcement activities of the authorized subjects of state power and their officials (in case the subject appeals by force of state enforcement), on the other hand, to stop violations of rights, restore violated rights, eliminating the threat of their violation. The main subjects authorized by the state to protect the rights of the taxpayer are the tax and judicial authorities. It is with the violation of subjective right legislator associates the use of remedies, enshrining in the Tax Code of Ukraine the right of taxpayers or tax agents to appeal the actions, inaction and decision of the tax authorities and their officials. Appeal of an interested person for protection of his rights implies the emergence of a substantive legal claim against the defendant for the implementation of his violated material interests. The substantive legal claim arises from a subjective substantive right arising in a substantive legal relationship. The plaintiff (taxpayer) believes that in order to exercise his subjective right, he has the right to demand from the defendant (tax authority), which is in a material legal relationship with him, the commission of certain actions or refraining from actions consistent with the right of the plaintiff. Appeal of an interested person for protection of his/her rights is aimed not only at realization of guarantees of their realization, but also at resolution of the arisen conflict. The need to have certain legal means of resolving a legal conflict is an integral element of legal regulation, since it ensures the implementation of a legal norm and its stability. Protection of violated rights and legitimate interests of the subjects of public-law relations is carried out by controlling the legality of actions (inaction) of the subjects of powers and acts adopted by them. Current tax legislation as a way to protect rights provides for the possibility to recognize an act of a tax authority as invalid, and its actions (inaction) – as not complying with the law. Legislator, by regulating the administrative and judicial procedure for resolving a tax dispute, thereby protects private interests from possible disfigured state interference. In this case, the administrative court, resolving a tax dispute, does not examine the conduct of the parties as such, but establishes how it complies with the norms of current tax legislation. It is on this basis the task of administrative court and its purpose of jurisdictional activity in resolving a dispute in the field of public-law relations is based, namely on the balance of rights of the state with the counter rights of a person (taxpayer) to ensure its protection of rights and legitimate interests, as applied for such protection. Dispute in relations regulated by the norms of tax law acts as a mechanism to guarantee the realization of subjective rights of taxpayers and balancing public and private interests, because it is aimed at protecting and restoring the violated (disputed) right.

The subject. For many years, Georgia, Moldova and Russia were part of the same state, which a priori indicates the existence of a similar legal system. Despite the positive experience of the European Economic Community, the trends that the USSR faced at the end of the XX century were reversed: the former republics gained independence and started to form their own legal systems. It seems appropriate to put forward the hypothesis that the newly formed States should have used a common legal heritage and/or tried and tested foreign examples of normative acts. However, this does not seem to be the case.Purpose of the study. The article represents an attempt to verify the aforementioned hypothesis and deals with selected provisions of the national legislation of Georgia, Moldova and Russia that, from one hand, relate to taxation and, from the other, are of general character, i.e. can be applied not only to particular cases.Methodology. The research was carried out with the application of the formally legal interpretation of legal acts as well as the comparative analysis of Georgian, Moldovian and Russian legal literature. Structural and systemic methods are also the basis of the research,The main results. The content of tax laws determines the chosen model of the distribution of law provisions on liability for breach of tax legislation, i.e. the fact whether such laws contain provisions on liability. The compulsory administrative stage of dispute resolution has proven to be ineffective for taxpayers, tax representatives and third parties. As for the international resolution of tax disputes there is a wide diversity of applicable means (particularly, arbitration which is not characteristic for the national order) and of specific dispute resolution mechanisms. Conclusions. Despite certain differences, the legal regulation of liability and dispute resolution in Georgia, Moldova and Russia is very similar. However, it is necessary to take into account the distinctive features arising from the limitation of the territorial legal effect of the norms of Georgia and Moldova.

The subject of the study is the state of tax control as a significant institution of the tax system in Russia. An analysis of changes in legislation on taxes and fees, literature and taxation practices has pointed to the urgency of the problem of incomplete taxation by tax authorities during tax control. The purpose of the article is to study the completeness of tax calculation by tax authorities during tax control and justify the rejection of a model for compensating low tax risks for offenders by increasing the tax burden for law-abiding taxpayers. The insufficiency of desk tax audits after the introduction into the tax system of Russia of the limits on the exercise of taxpayer rights to calculate the tax base and (or) the amount of tax has been criticized in the article. It has been indicated to the possibility of incomplete calculation of taxes by the tax authority during tax control as a result of a conspiracy with the taxpayer. It has been concluded about the importance of monitoring the completeness of tax calculation by tax authorities, the need to increase the number of tax audits and abandoning the model of compensating low tax risks for offenders by increasing the tax burden for law-abiding taxpayers.

In this study, a research has been carried out on the credit rating carnet model proposal to increase the efficiency of the settlement establishment on the basis of a taxpayer-oriented approach and voluntary compliance. For this purpose, firstly the literature was reviewed, then the situation analysis of the reconciliation establishment was made by using the data in the published activity reports of the Tax Inspection Board, which is the central audit unit of the Ministry of Treasury and Finance, and the Revenue Administration. The primary data used in the study were obtained from the survey study conducted in Antalya Province. Approximately 83% of the respondents stated that they should have a taxpayer credit rating card. In this concept, a "taxpayer credit rating carnet" proposal has been developed in order to strengthen the legal infrastructure of the settlement on the basis of the principles of tax law and tax justice while determining the tax and penalty amounts agreed in the context of the discretionary power of the administration, which reinforces the taxpayer-oriented service concept and increases voluntary compliance. This proposal is considered to be a unique and effective solution in the taxpayer perception management and the right to reconciliation at the administrative stage, prevent disputes, ensure unity in practice, and be a unique and effective solution in the tax policy of the day and the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Sharia & Law is the property of United Arab Emirates University, College of Law, Sharia & Law Journal and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Probably, as in any state, in the sphere of legal regulation of relations between business and the state, the public interests of the state are always above the private interests of business. Any democratic and legal state, including Kazakhstan, is based on the principles of equality of all before the law and the court, as well as the rule of law. The tax legislation of Kazakhstan does not provide for a legal mechanism for the consideration of tax disputes arising between a taxpayer and an authorized state body by any non-judicial organizations. All tax disputes are subject to consideration on complaints of the taxpayer to the higher authorized tax authority and only after receiving the decision of the higher state body, this dispute can be referred to the court. This paper deals with problematic issues of tax law related to the attribution of all tax disputes to consideration exclusively by the higher authorized tax authority and later by the court, which always guard the interests of the state, which in practice causes distrust of businessmen and investors to the state. In this regard, this paper examines out-of-court methods of resolving tax disputes, international experience in resolving tax disputes by out-of-court organizations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Discussions of tax disputes in courts are characterized by certain peculiarities. These discussions gain special significance because these have implications for the economic stability of the country and the rights of the citizens. After all, unlike the disputes over other laws and regulations introduced by the government that affect an individual only in specific aspects, tax liabilities, being financial in nature, influence all the activities of a person throughout their lives because taxing the income of a person is a substantial and carefully designed mechanism of the state that interferes in a person's activities. In view of the foregoing, this part of the article deals with the peculiarities of discussing tax disputes in court, its existing practice, the experience of other countries, and on that basis, analyses the existing problems of legislative regulation of tax disputes and ensuring their finalization to draw certain conclusions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Türkiye Adalet Akademisi Dergisi is the property of Justice Academy of Turkey and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Tax dispute resolution in Indonesia has not yet met the principles of quick, simple, and economical. Taxpayers have to wait more than 3 years for the lawful certainty. This paper elaborates the potential strategy in resolving the tax dispute in Indonesia through administrative law. OECD has suggested taxpayers and revenue body to build positive connection through the changing of confrontation to the collaborative relationship. Mediation is a solution to encourage this positive bond in solving the dispute. It is successfully implemented in Australia. The similar way is strongly recommended for the Indonesian Government to develop a good relationship between taxpayers and revenue body. One of the chances for mediating in an attempt to minimize tax dispute is in the auditing process. This process cannot be easily done because it needs political will and high desired improvement from the Government to make a change. Mediation is an attempt to achieve a win-win solution and is in line with the principles of Pancasila, that is a deliberation for reaching an agreement. If it is done, then mediation will be a courteous way in tax dispute resolution and will be able to improve a good post-dispute relationship in Indonesia.

The article focuses on the analysis of such concepts as legal and judicial doctrines, their main features and the differentiation of these doctrines. Despite a wide range of research centered on the legal doctrine, it should be noted that in legal literature the topic of the judicial doctrine and its specific features still remains unexplored. The purpose of the article is to analyze and streamline the existing doctrinal studies conducted by scholars, to highlight the universality and the differences of both doctrines in practice where disputes are considered in court, and to express the author’s own vision of the possibility and the need of studying the judicial doctrine and its components. It is established that it is possible to apply some universal provisions to such a specific and complex branch of law as tax law. This ensues from the fact that resolution of tax disputes in court always rests upon one of the fundamental principles of law, namely, the rule of law. This is explained by its absolute universality, since it is taken as the basis throughout domestic legislation and has a fairly ramified meaning. This principle ensures the balance on the part of the State’s power and on the part of the parties to the dispute regarding their mutual rights and obligations. Besides, the judicial doctrine has such a special characteristic as descriptive and normative nature. This provision means that if there are certain discrepancies and conflicts in legislation and legal relations concerned, a judge seeks to apply a legal provision which matches an existing problem to the highest extent possible. In the absence of an identical provision or a provision most consistent with the situation, it is presumed that a judge may change a legal provision with the aim of resolving the problem. It should be noted that application of the principle of fairness in the judicial doctrine is not the same as its application in the legal doctrine, since plaintiff’s and defendant’s interests in tax conflicts are diametrically opposite. In such conditions, it is mandatory to coordinate one’s own behavior at the personal level to ensure that other participants are able to exercise their rights, and to take into account and balance own rights and obligations with the obligations and rights of persons who are opposed in disputed relations at the inter subjective level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Optimum: Journal of Economics & Management Sciences / Ekonomi ve Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi is the property of Optimum: Journal of Economics & Management Sciences and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Journal of Turkish Court of Accounts / Sayistay Dergisi is the property of Turkish Court of Accounts and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The Inland Revenue Board of Malaysia (IRBM) established the Dispute Resolution Department in 2013. The objectives of the establishment are to resolve disputes as early as possible and to produce lawful, effective and acceptable outcomes. This study aims to explore public's awareness on the department existence after 8 months of establishment and perceptions on the IRBM dispute resolution. Questionnaires were distributed to 2014 National Tax Conference participants (e.g. tax agents, lawyers, taxpayers) held in Kuala Lumpur. The analysis showed that almost half (48.3%) of the respondents did not know the establishment of the department. The respondents agreed (mean 4.28) that tax disputes should be resolved within the tax office to avoid litigation, save cost and expedite audit settlement and avoid delay in revenue collection. The respondents fairly agreed with tax officers’ competencies in resolving disputes (mean 3.71) and involvement of a mediator in resolving disputes (mean 3.39) due to cost and time consuming. More information on the department should be available in the IRBM website and media. This is the first empirical study on the public's awareness and perceptions on IRBM dispute resolution that provides a platform for further research and suggestions to IRBM for improvements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Optimum: Journal of Economics & Management Sciences / Ekonomi ve Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi is the property of Optimum: Journal of Economics & Management Sciences and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Journal of the Cukurova University Institute of Social Sciences is the property of Cukurova University Institute of Social Sciences and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)