Tax Mediation as a Tools for Resolving Tax Disputes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article is concerned with the theoretical and practical issues of resolving tax disputes with the help of such tools as tax mediation. The article is aimed at examining the essence of the institute of tax mediation as an effective tools for pre-trial resolution of tax disputes, taking into account the experience of foreign countries. Statistics on the consideration of tax disputes in administrative order are provided. Approaches to interpretation of the essence of tax mediation in scientific papers are studied. The authors’ own definition of tax mediation is presented, by which is meant the method of resolving tax disputes between tax authorities and taxpayers, based on the principles of presumption of the legitimacy of decisions and the integrity of the taxpayer, allowing to resolve tax disputes at the stage of pre-trial proceedings with the participation of a mediator. The purpose, objectives, principles of tax mediation are provided. The effects of tax mediation, causing influence on both tax authorities and taxpayers, are determined. The positive and negative factors of tax mediation use are closer defined. The analysis of foreign experience in the implementation of the mediation mechanism for resolving tax disputes is carried out. Also the subject composition of the tax mediation process is closer defined. The principles of mediators’ activity: voluntariness, neutrality and confidentiality are analyzed. The experience of foreign countries, namely: the Netherlands, the USA, Germany, Great Britain, Belgium, Canada on the implementation and implementation of tax mediation is characterized. The analysis of the experience of foreign countries shows that legal practice of taxation has an extremely rich instrumentarium for alternative settlement of tax disputes Proposals for the regulation of the tax mediation mechanism at the legislative level are developed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".