Study Of Tax Administrative Proceedings The Burden Of Proof

As an important link of administrative appeal, tax-related administrative appeal is confined by the fundamental rules of administrative appeal. However, in view of the specialty of tax-related administration law enforcement, current system and mode for administrative appeal cannot be entirely copied for tax-related administrative appeal. In recent years, the matter of evidential proof in administrative appeal has attracted attention from the academic and practical circles and discussion on this issue has promoted continuous improvement of administrative appeal system in our country. Unfortunately, the academic and practical circles have not paid much attention to evidential proof with regard to tax-related administrative appeal. So, it is significant to discuss the issue, with practice in taxing law enforcement and judgment in tax-related administrative appeal in China being taken into consideration.The key issue of study on the evidential proof in tax-related administrative appeal is who will bear the unfavorable legal consequence due to his quoting inability in case of unclearness of a tax-related fact. Of an administrative law relation, one party is administrative law enforcement institution that takes up a favorable position and the other party is the administrative object in an unfavorable position. In consideration of protection of the interests of administrative person concerned, it is regulated in China's administrative appeal law that the administrative institution as the defendant constantly takes the major responsibility for evidential proof in the course of administrative action and the accuser just assumes the preliminary evidential proof (refer to Article 32 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on Administrative Appeal). This basic rule for evidential proof allocation in administrative action is certainly applicable to tax-related administrative appeal in terms of evidential proof. However, any rule has its exception. The specialty of taxing work shows distinct differences between taxation department and other administrativelaw enforcement institutions in terms of evidence collection, as a part of the administrative procedure, to assuming of evidential proof. Therefore, it is hard to solve the issue caused by evidential proof allocation in tax-related administrative appeal and even the tax-related procedure may go astray in the context of current rules for evidential proof.In China, relevant regulations of administrative appeal law are used for a court to judge tax-related administrative appeal. Sometimes it ignores the specialty of tax-related administration law enforcement and confuses the difference between administrative appeal and tax-related administrative appeal in terms of evidential proof. At present, major issues affecting improvement of evidential proof system of tax-related administrative appeal in our country are: first, the rights and liabilities of the state and taxpayers are unequal while the taxpayers are not well conscious of the importance of abiding by tax law; second, taxation department has undue power in free judgment while it is very hard to collect the evidence of tax-related fact; third, the defendant is allowed to enlarge the evidence-giving range randomly when the court is judging a tax-related case. The author argues that the obscurity is objective in whether the tax-related fact is true or false and also wonders if the taxation department-collected evidence is checked in an "all-round way" or substantially in "lawful way". Respecting the taxation department's cognizance of the fact or not is an important factor concerning proper allocation of evidential proofs. Progress of an action directly depends on whether the court pursues "legal fact" or "objective fact". To study the evidential proof system we must also research into presumption rules. Presumption affects and even decides the allocation of evidential proofs. It can change the factual object of evidential proof and decides the transfer and alteration of evidential proof.It is suggested that lawmaking for constructing the evidential proof system in tax-related administrative appeal in China should be based on the theory "standardization", with some good experiences and practices in relation to evidential proof allocation system in evidence lawmaking in UK, USA and France being usedfor reference. On this basis, the idea for evidential proof allocation in tax-related administrative appeal is formed: the defendant, taxation department, assumes the evidential proof as the general principle. In special case, the evidential proof that should be assumed by the taxation department is transferred to the taxpayer, i.e., the regulations of Article 32 and Article 43 of the Law of the Peoplep 's Republic of China on Administrative Appeal are followed as the general rules, while the transfer of evidential proof that should be assumed by the taxation department to taxpayer is allowed for such 4 occasions as legal factual presumption, tax law regulation proclaimed in written form, certified document provided by taxpayer according to law and the court presumes taxpayer to assume evidential proof based on individual case ."Tax revenue is the price paid for civilization". In modern times, no one in any civilized country can escape the role as a taxpayer. This paper aims at discussing the difference of tax-related administrative appeal and other administrative appeals in terms of evidential proof allocation by analyzing the unique function of evidential proof in tax-related administrative appeal, providing a train of thought for improving the tax-related appeal theory of China.