Files

Download

Download Full Text (5.1 MB)

Download Front Matter (329 KB)

Download Table of Contents (554 KB)

Download One: The United States and the Other "Five": An Analytical Comparison; I: An Overview: Requisite Administrative Frameworks (737 KB)

Download II: Centrally Administered Rule-Making Programs (1775 KB)

Download III: Assessment and Administrative Appeal Procedures (1401 KB)

Download IV: Conflict Resolution by Independent Tribunals (1572 KB)

Download Two: Belgium; V: Administrative Organizational and Personnel Frameworks (995 KB)

Download VI: Administrative Rule-Making Programs (1148 KB)

Download VII: Assessment, Refund, and Administrative Appeal Procedures (891 KB)

Download VIII: Resolution of Interpretative Income Tax Questions by Independent Tribunals (592 KB)

Download Three: France; IX: Administrative Organizational and Personnel Frameworks (886 KB)

Download X: Administrative Rule-Making Programs (716 KB)

Download XI: Assessment, Refund, and Administrative Appeal Procedures (988 KB)

Download XII: Resolution of Tax Questions by Independent Tribunals (862 KB)

Download Four: Germany; XIII: Administrative Organizational and Personnel Frameworks (910 KB)

Download XIV: Administrative Rule-Making Programs (881 KB)

Download XV: Assessment, Refund, and Administrative Appeal Procedures (876 KB)

Download XVI: Resolution of Interpretative Income Tax Questions by Independent Tribunals (1195 KB)

Download Five: Great Britain; XVII: Administrative Organizational and Personnel Frameworks (752 KB)

Download XVIII: Administrative Rule-Making Programs (1020 KB)

Download XIX: Assessment, Refund, and Administrative Appeal Procedures (929 KB)

Download XX: Resolution of Interpretative Income Tax Questions by Independent Tribunals (923 KB)

Download Six: The Netherlands; XXI: Administrative Organizational and Personnel Frameworks (903 KB)

Download XXII: Administrative Rule-Making Programs (765 KB)

Download XXIII: Assessment, Refund, and Administrative Appeal Procedures (742 KB)

Download XXIV: Resolution of Interpretative Income Tax Questions by Independent Tribunals (881 KB)

Description

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.

Publication Date

1968

Publisher

University of Michigan Law School

City

Ann Arbor

Keywords

Conflict resolution, Tax administration, Tax payers, Comparative tax, Belgium, France, West Germany, Great Britain, Netherlands, United States, Rule-making, Procedure, Tribunals

Disciplines

Administrative Law | Comparative and Foreign Law | European Law | Tax Law

Comments

Published under the auspices of the University of Michigan Law School (which, however, assumes no responsibility for the views expressed) with the aid of funds derived from gifts to the University of Michigan by William W. Cook.

Comparative Conflict Resolution Procedures in Taxation: An Analytic Comparative Study

Share

COinS