A Study On Responsibility Assignment Of Tax Administrative Litigation

Burden of proof is defined as the part of bearing the burden of proof undertakes the adverse consequences of lawsuits when the fact of legal case can not be found out that according to the rule for distribution of burden of proof. On macro, the aim to divide ascription of burden of proof at accomplish the justice and equity through reasonable allocation of risk on lawsuit. It is significant to balance the right of taxpayer and state revenue and accomplish fair tax, how to reasonable allocate burden of proof between taxpayer and tax authorities.Compare with general administrative case, tax case have different features. When tax is moneys of public law without equal price, focus on principle of tax equity, and the materials of administration and tax should be charged of taxpayers. For us, burden of proof system of tax administrative lawsuits should be emphasized and an burden of proof system compatible with tax lawsuits should be established. Throughout researches at home and abroad, those about burden of proof mostly focus on the field of administrative lawsuits and it is too superficial for a specific tax administrative lawsuits. Throughout our actual tax law, lacking of clear allocation rule and guideline of concrete operation, make the research of burden of proof necessary.First chapter makes clear the concepts of burden of proof and tax administrative lawsuit then defines the contents of this essay. Second chapter concludes the basic theories of tax administrative lawsuits for burden of proof and focuses on commending three typical doctrines, public enforcing force, classification of law components, and classification of law components on revised. Third chapter makes a throughout conclusion of allocation rule of tax burden of proof in our country. Then I indicate the problems of the shortage of clear allocation rule and the neglect of particularity of law case. Chapter four introduces German and American allocation system of administrative lawsuits for burden of proof. Based on this, I try to find an allocation rule that suits our country and significant for perfecting legislation.Through the early four chapters'discussions and researches, this essay indicates in the chapter5, we should use the classification of law components on revised as the theoretical base to establish allocation rule of our burden of proof for tax lawsuits and pay attention to the particularity of tax case. When we are facing the complex tax administrative case, we could take the allocation rule as the standard. According to different objects of proof and tax administrative acts, the provision required complaints and defendants to undertake proper burden of proof. That protects public and individual benefits effectively and contributes to accomplish the balance of different social benefits and the value of law in maximize.Specific for, first, the general allocation rule of tax administrative lawsuits for objective burden of proof in legislation should be defined. That is tax authorities in terms of tax components, tax increasing and punishment of components (infringement of components) to take the burden of proof. While tax payer in terms of tax abatements and so on that need to be applied to take the burden of proof.What's more, on account of the nature, intervene in property right severely that law case owns, and then tax authorities should take the proof for high degree of probabilities. That is in terms of imposed tax components, the fact of tax rising, and the fact of punishment, people's court received a real confidence. While the so-called high degree of probabilities should be differed between tax arguments (the fact of tax components and the fact of tax rising) and punishments of violating tax administration. As for as the former, that kind of confidence should be reached the condition of all the general reasonable persons do not doubt. That means at least 60% degree of confidence. While for the fact of violating the tax administrative punishment, we should use the high degree of probabilities which means almost real confidence, 80% degree of confidence.When the taxpayer takes burden of proof, chargeable burden of proof and the testified extent of tax components should be the same. That is reached the condition of all the general reasonable persons do not doubt. Because of the chargeable burden of proof of tax payer is aim at established tax debt should be unusual excluded. If permit lower burden testified degree, as well as tax payer could use unequal advantage to exclude the social obligation for members of public (the state as the benefit delegation of public), that will violate the equal burden principle.Next, the revised condition of principle provide general rule in legislation that is the tax payers can ease the testified degree of burden of proof in tax authorities, if they violate the cooperative obligation. Through the fact in law to presume the burden of proof in tax authorities can invert to tax payers. That's due to the feature of tax case, tax materials are charged of tax payers. All cases will violate equal burden principle if they applied the former general rule.Revised rule is only adequate for the fields of tax arguments. The behavioral punishment violates tax administrative provision can not be eased testified degree of tax authorities in terms of cooperative obligation. And that is not for inversion of burden of proof. Because the behavioral punishment of violating tax authorities administrative provision have the nature of sanctions and emphasize the ilegalidade and responsibility of actors. Differ from the certain of tax arguments, which apply to quoting law of punishment or administrative penalty and especially should carry on innocent presuming rule. The tax authorities should take the object burden of proof according to the fact of violation that includes ilegalidade and the fact of responsible components. And they should take higher testified degree than general cases of tax arguments.In light of administrative feature and tax materials in charged of tax payer, we could ease the testified degree of tax authorities in some conditions for accomplishing the equal principle of tax. The related provisions in Tax Administration Law are the concrete application of this principle. At the same time, endue the tax payer with cooperative obligation should comply with proportion principle and have the probability of expectation. Before checking collection, the tax authorities should take the burden of proof according to check the condition of collection and validity and rationality of standard of checking for easing the testified obligation. The nature of revised burden of proof in tax collection is reallocate entitative testified risk of law preinstall and weight the tax burden of tax payer under the condition of unclear tax fact. From protecting rights and benefits of tax payers standpoint, and based on the principle of tax legality and prohibit assumption tax, the revised burden of proof must authorize from tax law clearly and could not use the excuse of tax payer violate cooperative obligation to revise the burden of proof.