关税之死:对税务法院酌情处理讼费裁决的回顾

IF 0.9 Q2 LAW EJournal of Tax Research Pub Date : 2020-07-01 DOI:10.32721/ctj.2020.68.2.hosanna
Derrick Hosanna, E. Hennessey
{"title":"关税之死:对税务法院酌情处理讼费裁决的回顾","authors":"Derrick Hosanna, E. Hennessey","doi":"10.32721/ctj.2020.68.2.hosanna","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The traditional objective of a costs award in general civil litigation was to indemnify the successful party for the legal and other costs incurred to defend an unproven claim or pursue a valid legal right. However, Canadian courts have recognized that the traditional view of costs is outdated and that an additional and more important use of costs awards is promotion of the efficient and orderly administration of justice.<br><br>Costs awards at the Tax Court of Canada have generally followed a similar path of development, but at a slower pace. Historically, costs were awarded only in accordance with the tariff annexed to the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure) unless \"reprehensible, scandalous, or outrageous conduct\" was present. More recently, however, Tax Court judges have expressed concerns about the inadequacy of the tariff. These concerns have led the court to adopt a \"principled\" approach to costs, similar to that used in modern general civil litigation, by applying specific factors set out in rule 147(3) (\"the 147(3) factors\") rather than relying solely on the tariff.<br><br>This article reviews the recent jurisprudence relating to costs awards at the Tax Court, with a particular focus on the manner in which the 147(3) factors have been interpreted and how the application of those factors could evolve to further promote the new objectives of costs awards recognized in general civil litigation. The authors argue that costs awards by the Tax Court could be used more effectively to promote the efficient and orderly administration of justice by: <br><br>(1) taking into consideration the unique features of a tax dispute, and <br><br>(2) placing additional emphasis on the purposes of costs awards adopted in general civil litigation.","PeriodicalId":54058,"journal":{"name":"EJournal of Tax Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Death of the Tariff: A Review of the Tax Court's Discretionary Approach to Costs Awards\",\"authors\":\"Derrick Hosanna, E. Hennessey\",\"doi\":\"10.32721/ctj.2020.68.2.hosanna\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The traditional objective of a costs award in general civil litigation was to indemnify the successful party for the legal and other costs incurred to defend an unproven claim or pursue a valid legal right. However, Canadian courts have recognized that the traditional view of costs is outdated and that an additional and more important use of costs awards is promotion of the efficient and orderly administration of justice.<br><br>Costs awards at the Tax Court of Canada have generally followed a similar path of development, but at a slower pace. Historically, costs were awarded only in accordance with the tariff annexed to the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure) unless \\\"reprehensible, scandalous, or outrageous conduct\\\" was present. More recently, however, Tax Court judges have expressed concerns about the inadequacy of the tariff. These concerns have led the court to adopt a \\\"principled\\\" approach to costs, similar to that used in modern general civil litigation, by applying specific factors set out in rule 147(3) (\\\"the 147(3) factors\\\") rather than relying solely on the tariff.<br><br>This article reviews the recent jurisprudence relating to costs awards at the Tax Court, with a particular focus on the manner in which the 147(3) factors have been interpreted and how the application of those factors could evolve to further promote the new objectives of costs awards recognized in general civil litigation. The authors argue that costs awards by the Tax Court could be used more effectively to promote the efficient and orderly administration of justice by: <br><br>(1) taking into consideration the unique features of a tax dispute, and <br><br>(2) placing additional emphasis on the purposes of costs awards adopted in general civil litigation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":54058,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"EJournal of Tax Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"EJournal of Tax Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.32721/ctj.2020.68.2.hosanna\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EJournal of Tax Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.32721/ctj.2020.68.2.hosanna","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在一般民事诉讼中,赔偿费用的传统目的是赔偿胜诉一方为捍卫未经证实的索赔或追求有效的法律权利而产生的法律和其他费用。然而,加拿大法院已经认识到,传统的讼费观已经过时,讼费裁决的另一个更重要的用途是促进有效和有秩序的司法行政。加拿大税务法院的诉讼费裁决大体上遵循了类似的发展路径,但速度较慢。从历史上看,除非存在“应受谴责的、诽谤性的或令人发指的行为”,否则只能根据加拿大税务法院规则(一般程序)所附的关税裁决费用。然而,最近,税务法院的法官们对关税的不足表示了担忧。这些关切使法院采取了一种类似于现代一般民事诉讼中所使用的“原则性”方法来处理费用,即采用第147(3)条规定的具体因素(“147(3)因素”),而不是仅仅依靠关税。本文回顾了最近与税务法院讼费裁决有关的法理学,特别关注147(3)因素的解释方式,以及这些因素的应用如何演变,以进一步促进一般民事诉讼中公认的讼费裁决的新目标。作者认为,通过:(1)考虑到税务纠纷的独特特征,以及(2)额外强调一般民事诉讼中采用的讼费裁决的目的,可以更有效地利用税务法院的讼费裁决来促进高效率和有序的司法管理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Death of the Tariff: A Review of the Tax Court's Discretionary Approach to Costs Awards
The traditional objective of a costs award in general civil litigation was to indemnify the successful party for the legal and other costs incurred to defend an unproven claim or pursue a valid legal right. However, Canadian courts have recognized that the traditional view of costs is outdated and that an additional and more important use of costs awards is promotion of the efficient and orderly administration of justice.

Costs awards at the Tax Court of Canada have generally followed a similar path of development, but at a slower pace. Historically, costs were awarded only in accordance with the tariff annexed to the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure) unless "reprehensible, scandalous, or outrageous conduct" was present. More recently, however, Tax Court judges have expressed concerns about the inadequacy of the tariff. These concerns have led the court to adopt a "principled" approach to costs, similar to that used in modern general civil litigation, by applying specific factors set out in rule 147(3) ("the 147(3) factors") rather than relying solely on the tariff.

This article reviews the recent jurisprudence relating to costs awards at the Tax Court, with a particular focus on the manner in which the 147(3) factors have been interpreted and how the application of those factors could evolve to further promote the new objectives of costs awards recognized in general civil litigation. The authors argue that costs awards by the Tax Court could be used more effectively to promote the efficient and orderly administration of justice by:

(1) taking into consideration the unique features of a tax dispute, and

(2) placing additional emphasis on the purposes of costs awards adopted in general civil litigation.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Democracy Avoidance in Tax Lawmaking Recent Administrative and Judicial Developments in IRS Appeals Policy Forum: Promoting Tax Compliance by Regulating the Digital Economy - Quebec's Uber Initiative Supporting Small Businesses in Place Thinking Like a Source State in a Digital Economy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1