Article
Sep 26
Back

SOME METHODOLOGICAL DILEMMAS IN COMPARATIVE TAX LAW

Dejan Popović, Gordana Ilić-Popov

10.51204/Anali_PFBU_21301A
ABSTRACT /

Since for much of the 20th century the comparative law was developing as the comparative private law, with subsequent inclusion of constitutional, administrative and criminal law, comparisons of national tax systems were until recently marginal. The examination of the methods appropriate for the comparative tax law was especially neglected. Assuming that method in comparative law can be identified by techniques of comparisons, the authors considered dilemma whether the starting point for comparisons is praesumptio similitudinis or presumption of difference. Stemming from diversities of these assumptions, two methodological approaches in the comparative (tax) law have developed – functionalism (based on presumption of similarities) and cultural differences approach, from which critical approach subsequently emerged. Having analysed advantages and disadvantages of both approaches, the authors elaborated the basics of „cultural functionalism“, based on the inclusion of cultural context into the research of the ways how tax laws subject to comparison solve the given problems.

DOWNLOAD COMPLETE ARTICLE /
Serbian (cyr)   Serbian (lat)  
REFERENCES /
  1. Alesina, Alberto, Enrico Spolaore. 2003. The Size of Nations. Cambridge, Ma: MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/6261.001.0001
  2. Ault, Hugh J., Brian J. Arnold. 2010. Comparative Income Taxation. A Structural Analysis. Alphen aan den Rijn: Wolters Kluwer.
  3. Avi-Yonah, Reuven, Nicola Sartori, Omri Marian. 2011. Global Perspectives on Income Taxation Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195321357.001.0001
  4. Barker, William. 3/2005. Expanding the Study of Comparative Tax Law to Promote Democratic Policy: The Example of the Move to Capital Gains Taxation in Post-Apartheid South Africa. Penn State Law Review 109: 703–727.
  5. Beyer, Vicki L. 2/1992. The Legacy of the Shoup Mission: Taxation Inequities and Tax Reform in Japan. Pacific Basin Law Review 10: 388–408. https://doi.org/10.5070/P8102021998
  6. Blagojević, Borislav T. 1/1953. Uporedno pravo – metod ili nauka. Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu 1: 7–16.
  7. Brand, Oliver. 2/2007. Conceptual Comparisons: Towards a Coherent Methodology of Comparative Legal Studies. Brooklyn Journal of International Law 32: 405–466.
  8. Buijze, Renate. 4/2016. The Categorisation of Tax Jurisdictions in Comparative Tax Law Research. Erasmus Law Review 9: 189–198. https://doi.org/10.5553/ELR.000071
  9. Carbonnier, Jean. 1994. Sociologie juridique. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
  10. Chommie, John C. 1956. Why Neglect Comparative Taxation. Minnesota Law Review 40: 219–231.
  11. Commission staff working paper, Analytical report accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council. Commission Opinion on Serbia’s application for membership of the European Union, {COM (2011) 668}.
  12. Constantinesco, Léontin Jean. 1974. Traité de droit comparé. La méthode comparative, Paris: LGDJ.
  13. Cotterrell, Roger. 2007. Is it so Bad to be Different? Comparative Law and the Appreciation of Diversity. 133–154. Comparative Law. A Handbook, eds. Esin Örücü, David Nelken. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
  14. Cotterrell, Roger. 96/2011. Comparative Sociology of Law. Queen Mary University of London, School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper: 1–26.
  15. David, René. 1950. Traité élémentaire de droit civil comparé. Paris: LGDJ.
  16. Ewald, William. 2/1998. Posner’s Economic Approach to Comparative Law (1998). Texas International Law Journal 33: 381–386.
  17. Frankenberg, Günter. 2/1997. Stranger than Paradise: Identity & Politics in Comparative Law. Utah Law Review: 259–274.
  18. Garbarino, Carlo. 3/2009. An Evolutionary Approach to Comparative Taxation: Methods and Agenda for Research. The American Journal of Comparative Law 57: 677–709. https://doi.org/10.5131/ajcl.2008.0019
  19. Glanert, Simone. 2012. Method? 61–81. Methods of Comparative Law, ed. Pier Giuseppe Monateri. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
  20. Glenn, H. Patrick. 3/1993. La civilisation de la common law. Revue internationale de droit comparé 45: 559–575. https://doi.org/10.3406/ridc.1993.4727
  21. Gustafsson Myslinski, Ulrika. 2020. Sweden – Individual Taxation. 1.1–9. Country Tax Guides. Amsterdam: IBFD.
  22. Gutteridge, Harold Cooke. 1946. Comparative Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  23. Huiskamp, J. C. L. 1981. Definition, Scope and Importance of International Tax Avoidance. 19–25. International Tax Avoidance and Evasion. Colloquy of 5–7 March 1980 (Strasbourg). Amsterdam: IBFD.
  24. Husa, Jaakko. 4/2006. Methodology of comparative law today: from paradoxes to flexibility?  Revue internationale de droit comparé 58: 1095‒1117. https://doi.org/10.3406/ridc.2006.19483
  25. Infanti, Anthony C. 4/2002. Spontaneous Tax Coordination: On Adopting a Comparative Approach to Reforming the U.S. International Tax Regime. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 35: 1105–1233.
  26. Infanti, Anthony C. 3/2003. The Ethics of Tax Cloning. Florida Tax Review 6: 251–342.
  27. Jaluzot, Béatrice. 1/2005. Méthodologie du droit comparé: bilan et prospective. Revue internationale de droit comparé 57: 29–48. https://doi.org/10.3406/ridc.2005.19332
  28. KPMG. 2021. Corporate Tax Rates Table. https://home.kpmg/xx/en/home/services/tax/tax-tools-and-resources/tax-rates-online/corporate-tax-rates-table.html, poslednji pristup 12. januara 2021.
  29. Lambert, Édouard. 1905. Conception générale, définition, méthode et histoire du droit comparé. Le droit comparé et l’enseignement du droit. 26–61. Congrès international de droit comparé, tenu à Paris du 31 juillet au 4 août 1900. Procès-verbaux des séances et documents, vol. I. Paris: LGDJ.
  30. Legrand, Pierre. 2/1995. Comparative Legal Studies and Commitment to Theory. The Modern Law Review 58: 262–273. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1995.tb02009.x
  31. Legrand, Pierre. 1/1996. European Legal Systems Are Not Converging. The International and Comparative Law Quarterly 45: 52–81. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589300058656
  32. Legrand, Pierre. 4/1997. The Impossibility of Legal Transplants. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 4: 111–124. https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X9700400202
  33. Legrand, Pierre. 2/1998. Are Civilians Educable? Legal Studies 18: 216–230. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-121X.1998.tb00014.x
  34. Legrand, Pierre. 1/1999a. John Henry Merryman and Comparative Legal Studies: A Dialogue. The American Journal of Comparative Law 47: 3–66. https://doi.org/10.2307/840997
  35. Legrand, Pierre. 1999b. Le droit comparé. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
  36. Legrand, Pierre. 2009. La comparaison des droits expliquée à mes étudiants. 209–244. Comparer les droits, résolument, ed. Pierre Legrand. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
  37. Li, Jinyan. 1/2015. Tax Transplants and Local Culture: A Comparative Study of the Chinese and Canadian GAAR. Theoretical Inquiries in Law 11: 75–105. https://doi.org/10.2202/1565-3404.1255
  38. Likhovski, Assaf. 2/2010. Is Tax Law Culturally Specific? Lessons from the History of Income Tax Law in Mandatory Palestine. Theoretical Inquiries in Law 11: 725–763. https://doi.org/10.2202/1565-3404.1257
  39. Livingston, Michael A. 3/2006. From Milan to Mumbai, Changing in Tel Aviv: Reflections on Progressive Taxation and „Progressive“ Politics in a Globalized but Still Local World. The American Journal of Comparative Law 54: 555–586. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcl/54.3.555
  40. Livingston, Michael A. 2020. Tax and Culture. Convergence, Divergence, and the Future of Tax Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316480144
  41. Lukić, Radomir D. 1995. Metodologija prava. Beograd: Zavod za udžbenike i nastavna sredstva ‒ BIGZ.
  42. Marian, Omri Y. 2/2010. The Discursive Failure in Comparative Tax Law. The American Journal of Comparative Law 58: 415–470. https://doi.org/10.5131/ajcl.2009.0014
  43. Markesinis, Basil S. 1994. Chapter 1 – Learning from Europe and Learning in Europe. The Gradual Convergence: Foreign Ideas, Foreign Influences, and English Law on the Eve of the 21st Century, ed. Basil Markesinis. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  44. Markesinis, Basil S. 1997. Foreign Law and Comparative Methodology. London: Hart Publishing.
  45. Michaels, Ralf. 2006. The Functional Method of Comparative Law. 339–382. The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Law, ed. Mathias Reimann, Reinhard Zimmermann. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199296064.013.0011
  46. Miller, Jonathan M. 4/2003. A Typology of Legal Transplants: Using Sociology, Legal History and Argentine Examples to Explain the Transplant Process. The American Journal of Comparative Law 51: 839‒885. https://doi.org/10.2307/3649131
  47. Mokyr, Joel. 2017. A Culture of Growth: The Origins of the Modern Economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400882915
  48. Nerré, Birger. 2001. The Concept of Tax Culture. Paper prepared for the Annual Meeting. National Tax Association. Baltimore, MD.
  49. Örücü, Esin. 2000. Critical Comparative Law. Considering Paradoxes for Legal Systems in Transition. Electronic Journal of Comparative Law 4.1, https://www.ejcl.org/41/ art41–1.html, poslednji pristup 19. marta 2021.
  50. Örücü, Esin. 2007. Developing Comparative Law. 43–65. Comparative Law. A Handbook, eds. Esin Örücü, David Nelken. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
  51. Palmer, Vernon Valentine. 2/2004. From Lerotholi to Lando: Some Examples of Comparative Law Methodology. Global Jurist Frontiers 4: 1–29. https://doi.org/10.2202/1535-1653.1126
  52. Peters, Anne, Heiner Schwenke. 4/2000. Comparative Law beyond Post-Modernism. The International and Comparative Law Quarterly 49: 800–834. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589300064666
  53. Popović, Dejan. 2020a. Poresko pravo. Beograd: Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu.
  54. Popović, Dejan. 2020b. Unifikacija poreskog prava u prvoj jugoslovenskoj državi. Beograd: Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu.
  55. Popović, Dejan, Gordana Ilić‒Popov. 3/2020. Prethodno poresko mišljenje: pledoaje za njegovo preoblikovanje u srpskom poreskom pravu. Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu 68: 7–37. https://doi.org/10.5937/AnaliPFB2003007P
  56. Popović, Dragoljub. 2006. Uvod u uporedno pravo. Beograd: Službeni glasnik.
  57. Popović, Radomir J. 2009. Avram Petronijević. Doktorska disertacija. Beograd: Filozofski fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu.
  58. Popper, Karl R. 1994. The Myth of the Framework. In Defence of Science and Rationality. London: Routledge.
  59. Posner, Richard A. 1996. Law and Legal Theory in England and America. Oxford: Clarendon Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198264712.001.0001
  60. Pozzo, Barbara. 2013. Comparative Law and Language. 88–113. The Cambridge Companion to Comparative Law, ed. Mauro Bussani, Ugo Mattei. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139017206.007
  61. Rabel, Ernst. 1925. Aufgabe und Notwendigkeit der Rechtsvergleichung. München: M. Hueber Verlag.
  62. Reimann, Mathias. 4/2002. The Progress and Failure of Comparative Law in the Second Half of the Twentieth Century. The American Journal of Comparative Law 50: 671–700. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcl/50.4.671
  63. Reitz, John C. 4/1998. How to Do Comparative Law. The American Journal of Comparative Law 46: 617–636. https://doi.org/10.2307/840981
  64. Robert, Jacques-Henri. 1991. Saleilles et le comparatisme. Revue d’histoire des facultés de droit et de la science juridique 12: 143–149.
  65. Sacco, Rodolfo. 1/1991. A Dynamic Approach to Comparative Law (Installment I of II). The American Journal of Comparative Law 39: 1–34. https://doi.org/10.2307/840669
  66. Samuel, Geoffrey. 2014. An Introduction to Comparative Law Theory and Method. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
  67. Schlesinger, Rudolf B. 1/1969. Formation of Contracts – A Study of the Common Core of Legal Systems: Introduction. Cornell International Law Journal 2: 1–71.
  68. Stiglitz, Joseph E. 2003. Globalization and Its Discontents. New York: W. W. Norton.
  69. Susskind, Richard. 1987. Expert Systems in Law – A Jurisprudential Inquiry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  70. Thuronyi, Victor. 2003. Comparative Tax Law. The Hague: Kluwer.
  71. Vagtborg, Magnus, Jacob Krushave, Caroline Haure Nyborg. 2020. Denmark – Individual Taxation. 1.1–9. Country Tax Guides. Amsterdam: IBFD.
  72. Van der Zeijden, Femke. 2021. Sweden – Corporate Taxation. 1.1–14.6. Country Tax Guides. Amsterdam: IBFD.
  73. Van Hoecke, Mark. 2002. Deep Level Comparative Law. Working Paper No. 13. European University Institute, Badia Fiesolana.
  74. Van Hoecke, Mark. 12/2015. Methodology of Comparative Legal Research. Law and Method 5: 1–35. https://doi.org/10.5553/REM/.000010
  75. Vann, Richard J. 1998. International Aspects of Income Tax. 718–810. Tax Law Design and Drafting, Vol. 2, ed. Victor Thuronyi. Washington, D. C.: International Monetary Fund.
  76. Warskett, George, Stanley L. Winer, Walter Hettich. 2/1998. The Complexity of Tax Structure in Competitive Political Systems. International Tax and Public Finance 5: 123–151. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008669403754
  77. Watson, Alan. 3/1995. From Legal Transplants to Legal Formats. The American Journal of Comparative Law 43: 469–476. https://doi.org/10.2307/840649
  78. Watson, Alan. 2006. Legal Transplants and European Private Law. Belgrade: Alan Watson Foundation, Faculty of Law University of Belgrade.
  79. Votson, Alan. 2000. Pravni transplanti. Pristup uporednom pravu. Beograd: Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu.
  80. Zweigert, Konrad. 1/1966. Des solutions identiques par des voies différentes. Revue internationale de droit comparé 18: 5–18. https://doi.org/10.3406/ridc.1966.14471
  81. Zweigert, Konrad, Hein Kötz. 1998. Introduction to Comparative Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press.