University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository
Abstract
Tax administrators in well developed countries rarely have either occasion or opportunity to compare experiences or exchange opinions regarding procedures and practices utilized in administering complicated tax laws. Moreover, there is little comparative literature on the subject. Even the tax institutes which are internationally oriented usually focus on substantive tax principles, not procedures and practices. Hopefully, therefore, administrators in highly developed countries will find useful this analytic comparison of practices and procedures through which six of their number resolve disputable income tax questions -administratively and judicially.
Concern for tax administrators in well developed countries, however, was not the prime motivation for this study. The initial conception grew out of the belief that administrators in countries just now developing would find especially useful an analytic comparison of diverse functioning models which had evolved out of long experience. Since these now developing countries differ from one another on many counts, it was imperative that there be equally wide dissimilarity among the several experienced countries selected as models. Thus, the choice of Belgium, France, West Germany, Great Britain, the Netherlands, and the United States. These countries differ in their size and population, the complexity and precision of their tax statutes, the degree their legislative bodies provide additional guidance through pre-enactment materials, the assessment system used (self- versus non-self-assessment systems), the standards of construction to which their courts traditionally conform, the theoretical status assigned by each to the doctrine of precedent, and the types of persons available to handle tax disputes-both within and without the government. Consequently, it was possible to determine whether such basic differences were relevant or irrelevant when choosing, from among the alternative functioning models, the structural arrangement and practices most appropriate for each level involved in the conflict resolution process.
Also, the analytic comparison contained in the first four chapters should enable any given country to determine the extent to which diverse parts of different wholes are adaptable to its situation. The third purpose of this study is a byproduct of the first two. Practitioners engaged in international tax practice may gain a useful insight into the conflict resolution process followed in each of the six countries covered.https://repository.law.umich.edu/michigan_legal_studies/1005/thumbnail.jp
