EVIDENCE IN TAX PROCEEDINGS Abstract The purpose of the thesis is on one hand to provide an overall view of the issue of burden of proof in tax proceedings. On the other hand the thesis gives a detailed look into unclear and problematic provisions of the Tax Code concerning the burden of proof of tax subjects as well as that of tax administrators. The reason for my analysis is that number of questions related to the burden of proof in tax proceedings are very often matter of disputes between tax subjects and tax administrators which in many cases has to be decided by the Czech Supreme Administrative Court. The thesis is composed of four chapters, each of them dealing with different aspects of evidence. Chapter One is introductory and deals with evidence in proceedings in general. It also defines basic terminology used in the thesis such as evidence, basic principles of process, burden of production or burden of persuasion. The Chapter Two explains specifics of evidence in tax proceedings. Chapter Three deals with the definition of evidence and mentions different types of evidence in tax proceedings. Chapter Four is focused on the key issue of evidence in tax proceedings - the concept of burden of proof. The chapter consists of five parts. Part One concerns burden of proof of taxpayers while Part Two looks...

Uma das situações mais problemáticas causadas pela coexistência dos modelos de controle concentrado e difuso de constitucionalidade, no ordenamento jurídico brasileiro, com uma norma constitucional que estabelce a inviolabilidade da coisa julgada, consiste certamente no fenômeno da “coisa julgada inconstitucional”. Todavia, a aproximação desses modelos de controle com o que se tornou conhecido por “abstrativização” do controle difuso de constitucionalidade, ao invés de auxiliar na resolução da questão, tem tornado mais tormentosos os questionamentos sobre o tratamento a ser conferido às sentenças de mérito que adotam entendimento diverso daquele estabelecido pelo Supremo Tribunal Federal no exercício de sua função de guardião da Constituição. Nesse contexto, o presente estudo tem por objetivo contribuir para a construção de uma fórmula capaz de conciliar a coisa julgada com o sistema brasileiro de controle de constitucionalidade. Para tanto, foi escolhido o pano de fundo das obrigações tributárias, justamente porque, em razão de seu fundamento constitucional, nelas se apresenta de forma bastante evidente a necessidade de equilíbrio entre a segurança jurídica e da ordenação do processo, de um lado, e a supremacia da Carta Constitucional, das limitações ao poder de tributar e dos direitos fundamentais do contribuinte, de outro lado. A investigação parte do exame da coisa julgada sob a perspectiva de sua função na Constituição Federal de 1988, indetificando-se os valores que esse instituto busca concretizar. Na sequência, pretende-se demonstrar o modo como a coisa julgada realiza suas finalidades, destacada sua importância na limitação dos poderes do Estado. A partir daí, propõe-se uma qualificação da norma constitucional protetiva da coisa julgada segundo os critérios fornecidos pela teoria dos direitos fundamentais. A segunda parte do estudo analisa a atual configuração do controle de constitucionalidade no Brasil, tendo por objeto seu exercício diante de processos tributários. Nesse momento, a preocupação central está em definir com precisão os efeitos produzidos pelo juízo de validade da norma (em controle concentrado e difuso) sobre as relações jurídicas tributárias, conforme tenham elas sido objeto de decisão com autoridade de coisa julgada ou não. A parte final desta dissertação, por sua vez, reúne os principais elementos resultantes da pesquisa sobre a coisa julgada e o controle de constitucionalidade, para, enfim, limitarem-se as hipóteses em que há coisa julgada inconstitucional, e, então, sugerirem-se soluções para eventual conflito entre a coisa julgada e os efeitos do controle de constitucionalidade, sempre no contexto das relações tributárias. / One of the most significant issues triggered by the coexistence of diffuse and concentrated constitutional review in Brazilian law, and the constitutional provision that sets out the authority of res judicata is definitely the phenomenon of “unconstitutional res judicata”. However, the approximation of these models of judicial review, due to what has been known as the “objectivation” of diffuse constitutional review, instead of assisting one to resolve the issue, has increased the number of tormenting questions regardingthe treatment granted to judgments that have adopted different legal basis from the rationes decidendi set out by the Supremo Tribunal Federal while exercising its function as the Constitution Guardian. In such context, this study aims to contribute toward the construction of a formula capable of reconciling res judicata and the Brazilian system of judicial review. To do this, tax obligations were chosen to serve as the background setting, for their deeply embedded constitutional roots show in a most significant way the need to reach a balance between legal certainty and order in judicial procedure, on the one hand, and the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, the limitations on taxing authorities’ powers, and the taxpayer’s fundamental rights, on the other hand. The study begins examining res judicata from the perspective of its role under the 1988 Federal Constitution, identifying the values that the institute seeks to achieve. In sequence, I intend to demonstrate how res judicata achieves theses purposes, highlighting its importance in limiting State powers. Thereafter, I propose to the classify res judicata protection clause in accordance with the criteria provided by a theory of fundamental rights. The second part of the study aims to analyze the current status of constitutional judicial review Brazil in light of tax litigation proceedings. At this point, the main concern is to accurately define the effects deriving from a ruling in favour of a norm’s validity (in both concentrated and diffuse review) onto tax relations, according to whether these have been decided upon with the authority of res judicata or not. The final part of the thesis, on its turn, joins the main results from the prior research on res iudicata and judicial review to limit cases in which one can speak of “unconstitutional res iudicata”, and suggest solutions to a potential conflict between res iudicata and effects of judicial review, always in light of tax relations.

Uma das situações mais problemáticas causadas pela coexistência dos modelos de controle concentrado e difuso de constitucionalidade, no ordenamento jurídico brasileiro, com uma norma constitucional que estabelce a inviolabilidade da coisa julgada, consiste certamente no fenômeno da “coisa julgada inconstitucional”. Todavia, a aproximação desses modelos de controle com o que se tornou conhecido por “abstrativização” do controle difuso de constitucionalidade, ao invés de auxiliar na resolução da questão, tem tornado mais tormentosos os questionamentos sobre o tratamento a ser conferido às sentenças de mérito que adotam entendimento diverso daquele estabelecido pelo Supremo Tribunal Federal no exercício de sua função de guardião da Constituição. Nesse contexto, o presente estudo tem por objetivo contribuir para a construção de uma fórmula capaz de conciliar a coisa julgada com o sistema brasileiro de controle de constitucionalidade. Para tanto, foi escolhido o pano de fundo das obrigações tributárias, justamente porque, em razão de seu fundamento constitucional, nelas se apresenta de forma bastante evidente a necessidade de equilíbrio entre a segurança jurídica e da ordenação do processo, de um lado, e a supremacia da Carta Constitucional, das limitações ao poder de tributar e dos direitos fundamentais do contribuinte, de outro lado. A investigação parte do exame da coisa julgada sob a perspectiva de sua função na Constituição Federal de 1988, indetificando-se os valores que esse instituto busca concretizar. Na sequência, pretende-se demonstrar o modo como a coisa julgada realiza suas finalidades, destacada sua importância na limitação dos poderes do Estado. A partir daí, propõe-se uma qualificação da norma constitucional protetiva da coisa julgada segundo os critérios fornecidos pela teoria dos direitos fundamentais. A segunda parte do estudo analisa a atual configuração do controle de constitucionalidade no Brasil, tendo por objeto seu exercício diante de processos tributários. Nesse momento, a preocupação central está em definir com precisão os efeitos produzidos pelo juízo de validade da norma (em controle concentrado e difuso) sobre as relações jurídicas tributárias, conforme tenham elas sido objeto de decisão com autoridade de coisa julgada ou não. A parte final desta dissertação, por sua vez, reúne os principais elementos resultantes da pesquisa sobre a coisa julgada e o controle de constitucionalidade, para, enfim, limitarem-se as hipóteses em que há coisa julgada inconstitucional, e, então, sugerirem-se soluções para eventual conflito entre a coisa julgada e os efeitos do controle de constitucionalidade, sempre no contexto das relações tributárias. / One of the most significant issues triggered by the coexistence of diffuse and concentrated constitutional review in Brazilian law, and the constitutional provision that sets out the authority of res judicata is definitely the phenomenon of “unconstitutional res judicata”. However, the approximation of these models of judicial review, due to what has been known as the “objectivation” of diffuse constitutional review, instead of assisting one to resolve the issue, has increased the number of tormenting questions regardingthe treatment granted to judgments that have adopted different legal basis from the rationes decidendi set out by the Supremo Tribunal Federal while exercising its function as the Constitution Guardian. In such context, this study aims to contribute toward the construction of a formula capable of reconciling res judicata and the Brazilian system of judicial review. To do this, tax obligations were chosen to serve as the background setting, for their deeply embedded constitutional roots show in a most significant way the need to reach a balance between legal certainty and order in judicial procedure, on the one hand, and the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, the limitations on taxing authorities’ powers, and the taxpayer’s fundamental rights, on the other hand. The study begins examining res judicata from the perspective of its role under the 1988 Federal Constitution, identifying the values that the institute seeks to achieve. In sequence, I intend to demonstrate how res judicata achieves theses purposes, highlighting its importance in limiting State powers. Thereafter, I propose to the classify res judicata protection clause in accordance with the criteria provided by a theory of fundamental rights. The second part of the study aims to analyze the current status of constitutional judicial review Brazil in light of tax litigation proceedings. At this point, the main concern is to accurately define the effects deriving from a ruling in favour of a norm’s validity (in both concentrated and diffuse review) onto tax relations, according to whether these have been decided upon with the authority of res judicata or not. The final part of the thesis, on its turn, joins the main results from the prior research on res iudicata and judicial review to limit cases in which one can speak of “unconstitutional res iudicata”, and suggest solutions to a potential conflict between res iudicata and effects of judicial review, always in light of tax relations.

Uma das situações mais problemáticas causadas pela coexistência dos modelos de controle concentrado e difuso de constitucionalidade, no ordenamento jurídico brasileiro, com uma norma constitucional que estabelce a inviolabilidade da coisa julgada, consiste certamente no fenômeno da “coisa julgada inconstitucional”. Todavia, a aproximação desses modelos de controle com o que se tornou conhecido por “abstrativização” do controle difuso de constitucionalidade, ao invés de auxiliar na resolução da questão, tem tornado mais tormentosos os questionamentos sobre o tratamento a ser conferido às sentenças de mérito que adotam entendimento diverso daquele estabelecido pelo Supremo Tribunal Federal no exercício de sua função de guardião da Constituição. Nesse contexto, o presente estudo tem por objetivo contribuir para a construção de uma fórmula capaz de conciliar a coisa julgada com o sistema brasileiro de controle de constitucionalidade. Para tanto, foi escolhido o pano de fundo das obrigações tributárias, justamente porque, em razão de seu fundamento constitucional, nelas se apresenta de forma bastante evidente a necessidade de equilíbrio entre a segurança jurídica e da ordenação do processo, de um lado, e a supremacia da Carta Constitucional, das limitações ao poder de tributar e dos direitos fundamentais do contribuinte, de outro lado. A investigação parte do exame da coisa julgada sob a perspectiva de sua função na Constituição Federal de 1988, indetificando-se os valores que esse instituto busca concretizar. Na sequência, pretende-se demonstrar o modo como a coisa julgada realiza suas finalidades, destacada sua importância na limitação dos poderes do Estado. A partir daí, propõe-se uma qualificação da norma constitucional protetiva da coisa julgada segundo os critérios fornecidos pela teoria dos direitos fundamentais. A segunda parte do estudo analisa a atual configuração do controle de constitucionalidade no Brasil, tendo por objeto seu exercício diante de processos tributários. Nesse momento, a preocupação central está em definir com precisão os efeitos produzidos pelo juízo de validade da norma (em controle concentrado e difuso) sobre as relações jurídicas tributárias, conforme tenham elas sido objeto de decisão com autoridade de coisa julgada ou não. A parte final desta dissertação, por sua vez, reúne os principais elementos resultantes da pesquisa sobre a coisa julgada e o controle de constitucionalidade, para, enfim, limitarem-se as hipóteses em que há coisa julgada inconstitucional, e, então, sugerirem-se soluções para eventual conflito entre a coisa julgada e os efeitos do controle de constitucionalidade, sempre no contexto das relações tributárias. / One of the most significant issues triggered by the coexistence of diffuse and concentrated constitutional review in Brazilian law, and the constitutional provision that sets out the authority of res judicata is definitely the phenomenon of “unconstitutional res judicata”. However, the approximation of these models of judicial review, due to what has been known as the “objectivation” of diffuse constitutional review, instead of assisting one to resolve the issue, has increased the number of tormenting questions regardingthe treatment granted to judgments that have adopted different legal basis from the rationes decidendi set out by the Supremo Tribunal Federal while exercising its function as the Constitution Guardian. In such context, this study aims to contribute toward the construction of a formula capable of reconciling res judicata and the Brazilian system of judicial review. To do this, tax obligations were chosen to serve as the background setting, for their deeply embedded constitutional roots show in a most significant way the need to reach a balance between legal certainty and order in judicial procedure, on the one hand, and the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, the limitations on taxing authorities’ powers, and the taxpayer’s fundamental rights, on the other hand. The study begins examining res judicata from the perspective of its role under the 1988 Federal Constitution, identifying the values that the institute seeks to achieve. In sequence, I intend to demonstrate how res judicata achieves theses purposes, highlighting its importance in limiting State powers. Thereafter, I propose to the classify res judicata protection clause in accordance with the criteria provided by a theory of fundamental rights. The second part of the study aims to analyze the current status of constitutional judicial review Brazil in light of tax litigation proceedings. At this point, the main concern is to accurately define the effects deriving from a ruling in favour of a norm’s validity (in both concentrated and diffuse review) onto tax relations, according to whether these have been decided upon with the authority of res judicata or not. The final part of the thesis, on its turn, joins the main results from the prior research on res iudicata and judicial review to limit cases in which one can speak of “unconstitutional res iudicata”, and suggest solutions to a potential conflict between res iudicata and effects of judicial review, always in light of tax relations.

Relationship between criminal and tax proceedings from the perspective of the ne bis in idem principle Abstract The thesis reflects upon the current case law of the European and national courts, which enables the possibility of both tax and criminal proceedings for the same act of the same person running simultaneously. The aim of the author is to compare both types of proceedings, analyse the relevant case law, and evaluate the consequences of its conclusions on the Czech legal order in the view of the ne bis in idem principle. The opening describes the criminal and tax proceedings, their main features, and principles governing them. Features common to both types of proceedings are noted (the ability to substantially infringe the human rights of individuals), as well as the most significant difference between them (particularly when the rules of evidence are concerned). The next part of the thesis is devoted to tax delicts, both those governed by the tax law (so called delicts against the remittance discipline and administrative delicts) and the criminal law. Tax criminal law is briefly described as well. Examination of the aim, purpose, and implementation of sanctions and the characteristics of the tax penalty, whose punitive nature deduced by the case law is crucial to the issues discussed, is given in...

Access to justice and the right to a fair trial are basic human rights explicitly stipulated in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) as well as in the Swedish constitution. The fundamental meaning of these rights is that everyone should have an effective option for bringing their case to a court governed by the rule of law. Counsel fees and other process-costs may constitute a significant barrier to entry for an individual bringing his or her case to the court. Consequently, such cost-related barriers may deprive individuals of their right to a fair trial in practice. This fact is recognised in many legislations through legal aid provisions, reimbursement rules or similar mechanisms with the common purpose of eliminating, or at least lowering, the cost-barrier in question for the individual. Tax cases are often complex, and the average taxpayer would typically need to obtain legal counsel to vindicate his or her rights in a dispute with the tax authority. The taxpayer’s costs for such vindication may consequently be high. Swedish legislation stipulates that such costs under certain circumstances can be reimbursed by the state. In practice, however, the taxpayer seldom gets reimbursed for the full cost or even the majority of the cost, regardless of the outcome of the case. Even if the taxpayer wins the court case against the tax authority, it is not unusual that the taxpayer gets no reimbursement at all. This thesis analyses the Swedish reimbursement model for process-costs in tax cases and how it relates to the right to a fair trial. The question is whether the relevant legislation, and/or the courts’ application of it, risks being in breach of the ECHR’s and/or the Swedish constitution’s stipulated right to a fair trial. This thesis argues that it does; not as a result of the legislation itself, but because of the courts’ application of it. The risk of violating the right to a fair trial correlates primarily with two factors. These are what are at stake for the taxpayer (typically the disputed tax amount) and the complexity of the legal issues involved in the case. Trigger points for when the respective factor comes into play from a human rights perspective are analysed and discussed in the thesis. When they do, the absence of real possibilities of reimbursement of process-costs in a given tax case may constitute an unacceptable barrier for the individual to access justice and get a fair trial.

Annotation The diploma thesis deals with the description and analysis of tax and administrative management in terms of deadlines. The aim of the thesis is to find a practical basis when applying an inconsistent setting of deadlines in the tax and administrative procedures. It was important to determine whether the concept of deadlines in the legislation is different, how the concept of time is regulated in the legislation and how this issue can actually affect us. The analysis of individual management was based on actual data. I was provided the data related to the tax procedure by a particular tax subject. The data related to the administrative procedure were requested from a specific administrative authority. The practical part of the thesis deals with a detailed analysis of individual management in terms of deadlines. The tax procedure was about determining the preclusion of the deadline for a tax assessment and the identification of the factors which had an impact on the course of this period. In the case of administrative proceeding, the time limits which are necessary for discussion of the minor offense and the administrative offense were analyzed. The thesis contains tables with data for better clarity within individual management.