Favorability Principle of the Substantive Rule on Tax Matters. Train Wreck Between the Constitutional Court and the State Council
In special tax administrative law, the substantiverule refers to the structural elements of tax: taxpayer,tax collector, taxable event, basis of assessment, and therate. The favorability principle of the substantive rule ontax matters, regarding period taxes, is understood as theapplication of subst...
| Autor Principal: | Restrepo Pineda, Carlos Mario; Universidad Autónoma Latinoamericana, UNAULA |
|---|---|
| Formato: | info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
| Idioma: | spa |
| Publicado: |
Editorial Pontificia Universidad Javeriana
2015
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: |
http://revistas.javeriana.edu.co/index.php/cuacont/article/view/15020 |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: |
In special tax administrative law, the substantiverule refers to the structural elements of tax: taxpayer,tax collector, taxable event, basis of assessment, and therate. The favorability principle of the substantive rule ontax matters, regarding period taxes, is understood as theapplication of substantive rules that reduce or eliminate taxburdens, favoring the taxpayer in the same period the rulebecame effective. The way paragraph three of article 338 ofthe Constitution is redacted, when interpreted under thelight of paragraph two of article 363 of the Constitutioncreates confusions or quandaries regarding the applicationof this principle. The purpose of this article is to clarifythe case law line of the Constitutional Court and the StateCouncil as to carry out a comparative analysis of the applicationof the favorability principle of substantive rule ontax law. The case law line of each one of these two Corporationswas built using the methodology proposed by DiegoEduardo López-Medina, which is based on the formulationof a guiding question. In this case, that would be: Does thefavorability principle of substantive rule apply on tax matters?With two sides for an answer —yes and no— and tothis end we took the period between 1993 to 2014, we trackedthe rulings of both corporation and identified the mostrecent ruling, called Archimedes' ruling. Then, by meansof citations in the ruling, we detected other rulings referring to the same topic until we tracked down the foundingruling of the line: between the two extremes —the Archimedes'ruling and the founding ruling— all other rulingswere chronologically organized. After that, we observed theresult obtained, which may be a coherent or a chaotic line(López-Medina, 2000, pp. 142-147). In the case of the StateCouncil we found 18 rulings and for the case of the ConstitutionalCourt, 15 rulings. This article presents the caselaw line of the Constitutional Court and the State Councilalongside the findings, conclusions, and recommendationson the topic. |
|---|