Government intervention in the financial and social affairs of citizens has increased dramatically in the last fifty years. As a result, government administrative decisions continually affect the everyday lives of people. Many of these decisions are discretionary. Modern administrative law has grown to meet the need for governments, rather than the courts, to supervise the exercise of administrative power so that injustice resulting from misuse of power can be avoided. The merits review system is an integral part of this administrative law. The effectiveness of the merits review system is dependent upon how Parliament makes provision for merits review in the legislative process. The object of this thesis is to analyse and evaluate the effectiveness of the scope of the Commonwealth administrative law merits review system. An evaluation of the availability of rights of review of the merits of Commonwealth administrative decisions will determine the extent to which Commonwealth law provides for merits review of administrative decisions. This thesis makes such an evaluation by undertaking an empirical study of the merits review provisions in Commonwealth legislation. The empirical study analyses 1,070 Commonwealth statutes and establishes that there are 340 statutes that confer power to make a reviewable decision or decisions. However, only 30 percent of these statutes provide for merits review of all reviewable decisions, while 44 percent provide for merits review of some decisions and 26 percent do not provide for merits review of any decisions. Consequently, the empirical study identifies inconsistencies in the provision of merits review of Commonwealth administrative decisions. The Australian parliamentary executive system of government has permitted a breakdown in the legislative drafting process that has allowed these inconsistencies to develop. Moreover, the executive arm of the Commonwealth government has diminished its accountability to Parliament for some of the administrative decisions made by it. A person affected by an unreviewable administrative decision may be treated unjustly as a result.

Government intervention in the financial and social affairs of citizens has increased dramatically in the last fifty years. As a result, government administrative decisions continually affect the everyday lives of people. Many of these decisions are discretionary. Modern administrative law has grown to meet the need for governments, rather than the courts, to supervise the exercise of administrative power so that injustice resulting from misuse of power can be avoided. The merits review system is an integral part of this administrative law. The effectiveness of the merits review system is dependent upon how Parliament makes provision for merits review in the legislative process. The object of this thesis is to analyse and evaluate the effectiveness of the scope of the Commonwealth administrative law merits review system. An evaluation of the availability of rights of review of the merits of Commonwealth administrative decisions will determine the extent to which Commonwealth law provides for merits review of administrative decisions. This thesis makes such an evaluation by undertaking an empirical study of the merits review provisions in Commonwealth legislation. The empirical study analyses 1,070 Commonwealth statutes and establishes that there are 340 statutes that confer power to make a reviewable decision or decisions. However, only 30 percent of these statutes provide for merits review of all reviewable decisions, while 44 percent provide for merits review of some decisions and 26 percent do not provide for merits review of any decisions. Consequently, the empirical study identifies inconsistencies in the provision of merits review of Commonwealth administrative decisions. The Australian parliamentary executive system of government has permitted a breakdown in the legislative drafting process that has allowed these inconsistencies to develop. Moreover, the executive arm of the Commonwealth government has diminished its accountability to Parliament for some of the administrative decisions made by it. A person affected by an unreviewable administrative decision may be treated unjustly as a result.

Government intervention in the financial and social affairs of citizens has increased dramatically in the last fifty years. As a result, government administrative decisions continually affect the everyday lives of people. Many of these decisions are discretionary. Modern administrative law has grown to meet the need for governments, rather than the courts, to supervise the exercise of administrative power so that injustice resulting from misuse of power can be avoided. The merits review system is an integral part of this administrative law. The effectiveness of the merits review system is dependent upon how Parliament makes provision for merits review in the legislative process. The object of this thesis is to analyse and evaluate the effectiveness of the scope of the Commonwealth administrative law merits review system. An evaluation of the availability of rights of review of the merits of Commonwealth administrative decisions will determine the extent to which Commonwealth law provides for merits review of administrative decisions. This thesis makes such an evaluation by undertaking an empirical study of the merits review provisions in Commonwealth legislation. The empirical study analyses 1,070 Commonwealth statutes and establishes that there are 340 statutes that confer power to make a reviewable decision or decisions. However, only 30 percent of these statutes provide for merits review of all reviewable decisions, while 44 percent provide for merits review of some decisions and 26 percent do not provide for merits review of any decisions. Consequently, the empirical study identifies inconsistencies in the provision of merits review of Commonwealth administrative decisions. The Australian parliamentary executive system of government has permitted a breakdown in the legislative drafting process that has allowed these inconsistencies to develop. Moreover, the executive arm of the Commonwealth government has diminished its accountability to Parliament for some of the administrative decisions made by it. A person affected by an unreviewable administrative decision may be treated unjustly as a result.

Government intervention in the financial and social affairs of citizens has increased dramatically in the last fifty years. As a result, government administrative decisions continually affect the everyday lives of people. Many of these decisions are discretionary. Modern administrative law has grown to meet the need for governments, rather than the courts, to supervise the exercise of administrative power so that injustice resulting from misuse of power can be avoided. The merits review system is an integral part of this administrative law. The effectiveness of the merits review system is dependent upon how Parliament makes provision for merits review in the legislative process. The object of this thesis is to analyse and evaluate the effectiveness of the scope of the Commonwealth administrative law merits review system. An evaluation of the availability of rights of review of the merits of Commonwealth administrative decisions will determine the extent to which Commonwealth law provides for merits review of administrative decisions. This thesis makes such an evaluation by undertaking an empirical study of the merits review provisions in Commonwealth legislation. The empirical study analyses 1,070 Commonwealth statutes and establishes that there are 340 statutes that confer power to make a reviewable decision or decisions. However, only 30 percent of these statutes provide for merits review of all reviewable decisions, while 44 percent provide for merits review of some decisions and 26 percent do not provide for merits review of any decisions. Consequently, the empirical study identifies inconsistencies in the provision of merits review of Commonwealth administrative decisions. The Australian parliamentary executive system of government has permitted a breakdown in the legislative drafting process that has allowed these inconsistencies to develop. Moreover, the executive arm of the Commonwealth government has diminished its accountability to Parliament for some of the administrative decisions made by it. A person affected by an unreviewable administrative decision may be treated unjustly as a result.

While several Australian and international studies have explored the family lawyer-client interaction, these studies have been limited to investigations of discrete areas of the lawyerclient relationship and have been necessarily limited in their methodologies. The present study employed a quantitative empirical methodology in an Australian wide field study of 230 family lawyers and 94 clients that investigated the family lawyer-client interaction from a procedural justice framework. Using multivariate analyses, the study establishes that the Tyler and Blader two-component model of procedural justice applies in the lawyer-client dyad and is influenced by the approach of the lawyer, the emotional response of the client, and the level of co-party conflict that the client is experiencing. Further, the study gives meaning to the terms 'conciliatory and constructive' and 'adversarial' as they apply to family law dispute resolution. The study establishes a construct to measure the conciliatory and adversarial approach of family lawyers and identifies that lawyers tend to incorporate a mixture of the two into their work. The results also identify four distinct behavioural factors that characterise the two approaches: the client-centred and interest-based factors characterise the conciliatory approach; and the lawyer-directed and court-focused factors characterise the adversarial. The study found that in terms of perceptions of fairness, and feelings of satisfaction, the clients preferred the lawyers who took a client-centred and interest-based approach, but in circumstances where the clients were experiencing high-levels of conflict, or fear for the safety of their children, they also appreciated the lawyer who was lawyer-directed and court-focused. Overall, the study shows that in order to create a fair and satisfying dispute resolution service for their clients, family lawyers need to maintain a fine balance of family lawyering behaviour. On a general level, the study provides a profile of Australian family lawyers in terms of their approach to dispute resolution, their attitude towards ADR processes and their favoured negotiation styles. It also profiles family law clients in terms of their emotional adjustment to the divorce and their perceptions of the family lawyers assisting them to resolve their disputes. The study substantially expands the procedural justice theory base and has significant implications for practical family law education, government policy, family lawyering, and the ADR and collaborative law movements. The study indicates where future research could benefit these communities.

Government intervention in the financial and social affairs of citizens has increased dramatically in the last fifty years. As a result, government administrative decisions continually affect the everyday lives of people. Many of these decisions are discretionary. Modern administrative law has grown to meet the need for governments, rather than the courts, to supervise the exercise of administrative power so that injustice resulting from misuse of power can be avoided. The merits review system is an integral part of this administrative law. The effectiveness of the merits review system is dependent upon how Parliament makes provision for merits review in the legislative process. The object of this thesis is to analyse and evaluate the effectiveness of the scope of the Commonwealth administrative law merits review system. An evaluation of the availability of rights of review of the merits of Commonwealth administrative decisions will determine the extent to which Commonwealth law provides for merits review of administrative decisions. This thesis makes such an evaluation by undertaking an empirical study of the merits review provisions in Commonwealth legislation. The empirical study analyses 1,070 Commonwealth statutes and establishes that there are 340 statutes that confer power to make a reviewable decision or decisions. However, only 30 percent of these statutes provide for merits review of all reviewable decisions, while 44 percent provide for merits review of some decisions and 26 percent do not provide for merits review of any decisions. Consequently, the empirical study identifies inconsistencies in the provision of merits review of Commonwealth administrative decisions. The Australian parliamentary executive system of government has permitted a breakdown in the legislative drafting process that has allowed these inconsistencies to develop. Moreover, the executive arm of the Commonwealth government has diminished its accountability to Parliament for some of the administrative decisions made by it. A person affected by an unreviewable administrative decision may be treated unjustly as a result.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Kent State University, 2004. / Title from PDF title page (viewed on Apr. 27, 2006). Includes bibliographical references (p. 175-209).

Submitted by Edileide Reis (leyde-landy@hotmail.com) on 2013-04-11T20:05:28Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Souza.pdf: 1936123 bytes, checksum: 0a640fce015fa0ed3bfb7ba212113281 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Rodrigo Meirelles(rodrigomei@ufba.br) on 2013-05-09T17:20:43Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 Souza.pdf: 1936123 bytes, checksum: 0a640fce015fa0ed3bfb7ba212113281 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2013-05-09T17:20:43Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Souza.pdf: 1936123 bytes, checksum: 0a640fce015fa0ed3bfb7ba212113281 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2008 / No âmbito federal o Processo Administrativo fiscal é regulamentado pelo Decreto nº 70.235/72 e tem por finalidade proporcionar um aperfeiçoamento do lançamento tributário definindo com maior segurança e precisão o credito tributário que o fisco entende ser devido. O julgamento de processos fiscais é feito por órgãos integrantes do Ministério da Fazenda que são as Delegacias de julgamento os Conselhos de Contribuintes e a Câmara Superior de Recursos Fiscais ficando evidente que o processo administrativo fiscal se constitui em procedimento interno de controle da legalidade dos atos da Administração Pública Federal. Sendo assim apesar das divergências doutrinárias o entendimento majoritário sempre foi o de que as decisões definitivas dele decorrentes e que fossem favoráveis ao contribuinte o desoneravam da obrigação tributária em discussão tendo em vista que a própria Administração Pública teria reconhecido a ilegalidade de seu ato consubstanciado através do Auto de Infração ou da Notificação Fiscal de Lançamento. Entretanto este pensamento foi questionado através do Parecer nº 1.087 da Procuradoria Geral da Fazenda Nacional (PGFN) de 23 de agosto de 2004 que entendeu ser possível juridicamente que uma decisão final favorável ao contribuinte proferida em Processo Administrativo fiscal fosse questionada no Poder Judiciário através da Procuradoria Geral Fiscal Nacional (PGFN). Em 25 de outubro de 2004 foi publicada a Portaria nº 820, que definiu as circunstâncias em que a PGFN poderia impetrar a hipotética ação. Tal situação reacendeu a discussão sobre o tema e tem suscitado grandes debates na área jurídica questionando-se inclusive, a constitucionalidade tanto do Parecer quanto da Portaria e originando o estudo a que se propõe o presente trabalho que ao final visa responder se é legalmente possível o Estado buscar a revisão de decisões administrativas em caráter definitivo na área tributária que lhe sejam desfavoráveis através do Poder Judiciário. / Salvador

Submitted by Frederico Bendzius (fbendzius@gmail.com) on 2017-05-31T21:45:18Z No. of bitstreams: 1 2017_05_31 - dissertação FB.pdf: 2222607 bytes, checksum: 8a9808254ca7990b8aa9dbf966311f09 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Joana Martorini (joana.martorini@fgv.br) on 2017-06-01T11:31:00Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 2017_05_31 - dissertação FB.pdf: 2222607 bytes, checksum: 8a9808254ca7990b8aa9dbf966311f09 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2017-06-02T13:03:52Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 2017_05_31 - dissertação FB.pdf: 2222607 bytes, checksum: 8a9808254ca7990b8aa9dbf966311f09 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2017-04-27 / Nesta pesquisa, objetiva-se tratar da aplicação do precedente judicial nas atividades da Administração Tributária. Mais especificamente, pretende-se debater como a Procuradoria Geral do Estado de São Paulo pode orientar suas ações após a fixação de teses em precedentes. O tema é relevante em razão do princípio da isonomia tributária e para a redução da litigiosidade. Utilizei como método o exame da literatura e da legislação, além da experiência institucional da Procuradoria Geral da Fazenda Nacional. Concluí que a valoração dos precedentes deve ser incorporado ao quotidiano da Procuradoria Geral do Estado de São Paulo a fim de dar mais eficiência à sua atividade. / In this research, the objective is to deal with the application of judicial precedent in the activities of the Tax Administration. More specifically, it intends to discuss how the Attorney General's Office of the State of São Paulo can guide its actions after setting theses in precedents. The issue is relevant due to the principle of tax isonomy and to the reduction of litigation. I used as method the examination of the literature and legislation, in addition to the institutional experience of the Attorney General of the National Treasury. I concluded that the valuation of precedents should be incorporated into the daily routine of the Attorney General's Office of the State of São Paulo in order to give more efficiency to its activity.

The thesis "Limitations of professional liability in relation to the professions of auditor, tax adviser and accountant with regard to the duty of confidentiality" focuses on a more detailed elaboration of the selected specific segment of professional liability of the given professions, on the legal and ethical obligations in the field of confidentiality and the possibility of its breaking. The introductory part of the thesis deals with confidentiality in terms of historical development and its importance in the present. Further, it outlines the area of moral and ethical responsibility, legal liability in general, and confidentiality as a specific duty. The concept of confidentiality of the professions of auditors, tax advisers and accountants represents the core of the presented work. The duty of confidentiality of the profession of auditors is significantly influenced by the public interest in the presented information in the form of opinion on the financial statements of the audited entities, and thus the possibilities of the legally supported breaking of this obligation are the most extensive, as evidenced by the amendment to the Act on Auditors, effective from 1 October 2016. The duty of confidentiality of the tax adviser has until recently been strictly defined on a legal basis. The change was brought by the Supreme Court's case law in November 2015, which by comparing the principally equivalent conditions for the exercise of legal liability in the area of confidentiality of the tax adviser and attorney, also deduces the similarities of competencies of both professions in cases of breaking the confidentiality. The accounting profession is not regulated by law, and therefore the confidentiality obligation is also not legally enforceable. However, professional certified accountants are required to comply with the Code of Conduct issued by the Professional Chamber. The final part of the thesis focuses on comparing the duty of confidentiality of the selected professions of auditors, tax advisers and professional accountants with the attorney-at-law profession.