A comparative examination of the effectiveness of administrative and judicial remedies in resolution of tax disputes and collection of tax

Due to the length and simplicity of tax legislation, it is difficult to implement or interpret. As a natural consequence of this difficulty, in some cases, disputes arise between the administration and the taxpayer. The main duty of the state here is to ensure that the dispute is resolved fairly and quickly within the framework of universal law principles. There are two ways to resolve tax disputes, judicial and administrative. It is important for the society and the individual to investigate which of these ways is more effective in realizing justice and tax collection, in terms of the individual and the state. The aim of this research is to find an answer to the question of how effective the administrative and judicial solutions are comparatively in the resolution of tax disputes and tax collection. In the study, the conceptual framework of the concept of tax dispute is presented and the role of taxation in the welfare state is briefly emphasized. Considering the qualifications of the Turkish tax jurisdiction, the ways of resolution of tax disputes were examined in detail and the advantages and disadvantages of it for the parties were evaluated. It is important to determine whether the path preferred by the taxpayer, who is a party to the dispute, is the most advantageous for them. It is important to determine the most effective and advantageous way for the administration, which is the other side of the tax dispute. In this context, the effects of bringing tax disputes before tax courts in terms of the state as tax creditor, taxpayer as tax debtor and tax jurisdiction are presented in this study. In the study, it has also been tried to determine the measures to prevent disputes and to make these measures effective, and to develop alternative ways to resolve tax disputes in terms of the parties to the disputes and the tax jurisdiction.