Research On The Burden Of Proof In Anti-tax Avoidance Investigation

A general and ambiguous rule of proof makes the activities of proof of both the tax collectors and the taxpayers in the anti-avoidance investigation appear more confusing.In terms of the rules on the allocation of the burden of proof,there are problems such as negating the burden of proof of taxation authorities,insisting on the inversion of the burden of proof of taxation authorities,and confusing the boundary between the duty to cooperate in taxation and the burden of proof,which seriously damage the fairness of anti-avoidance investigation procedures.In terms of the rules on the application of the standard of proof,there are problems such as vague and unclear standard of proof,excessive discretionary power of taxation authorities and ignored superior evidence of taxpayers,which further limit the role of the rules of proof in regulating the investigation procedure of anti-tax avoidance.Therefore,upholding the idea of problem-oriented measures,we try to propose corresponding solutions.According to the connotation of the rules of proof,it is divided into two major directions: firstly,to refine the rules on the allocation of the burden of proof in anti-tax avoidance investigation,specifically from three aspects: accurate positioning of the scope of responsibility of tax authorities,clarifying the essential characteristics of the duty to cooperate in taxation and its boundary with the burden of proof,and setting up supporting mechanisms to complete a good interface with the rules of proof standards.Secondly,it constructs a monolithic and multi-layered standard of proof system in anti-tax avoidance investigation procedures,and at the same time strengthens the reasoning process of externalizing free mental evidence.Through the refinement of the rules on the allocation of the burden of proof and the systematic construction of the rules on the application of the standard of proof,a two-pronged approach is adopted to better play the important role of the rules of proof in the anti-avoidance investigation.