The Symposium on Current Developments in Tax Jurisdiction, on the theme of “A Look at the Change and Developments in Administrative Jurisdiction with Specific Reference to Tax Adjudication”, was held in Ankara in cooperation between the Faculty of Law of Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University and Pamukkale University. At the program, which took place with the participation of Council of State President Zeki YİĞİT, Deputy Minister of Treasury and Finance Abdullah Erdem CANTİMUR, AYBÜ Rector Prof. Dr. Ali Cengiz KÖSEOĞLU, President of the 3rd Chamber of the Council of State Hanifi DOĞAN, President of the 11th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation Hanefi KESKİN and MÜSİAD Deputy President Ahmet Doğan ALPEREN, the current problems of tax adjudication were addressed at the symposium, which provided an occasion for the meeting of members of the judiciary, academia, the administration and the profession.

MÜSİAD Deputy President Ahmet Doğan Alperen, who took part both with a speech and as a speaker at the symposium, touched on the formation of a fair system in taxation and stated that a fair tax system should be established.

Alperen made the following statements in his speech:

“Because we believe that the fundamental source of our tax disputes stems from the fact that our tax laws are not clear and comprehensible, as MÜSİAD we organized a panel on 13 December 2023 under the title of the need for Tax Reform in Türkiye with the participation of all parties. In fact, since the topics to be addressed here today are of the nature of a continuation of that panel of ours, I would like to express my satisfaction. Differences of jurisprudence in tax jurisdiction create serious problems. Differences of jurisprudence between tax courts damage society's trust in the justice system and adversely affect institutional prestige. For example, in some cases different rulings may be given on whether a precautionary attachment decision can be taken after a tax inspection has been completed, or on which measures will be applied regarding legal representatives. This situation shakes belief in the justice system at the individual level and may lead to the violation of the right to a fair trial.

Let us proceed through an example. Different courts giving different rulings on whether a guarantee may be requested under the Law after a tax inspection has been completed may frustrate the expectations of taxpayers for legal certainty. While one court rules that a guarantee may be requested, another court may rule quite the opposite. This situation creates a sense of injustice among taxpayers and shakes trust in the judiciary.”

Emphasizing also that unity of jurisprudence should be established, Deputy President Alperen said: “Ensuring unity of jurisprudence in tax jurisdiction and the effective functioning of tax courts is essential for the implementation of the principle of the rule of law. On this occasion, I would like to emphasize once again the importance of the steps to be taken towards strengthening tax jurisdiction and eliminating differences of jurisprudence.”

The program came to an end with the presentation of awards.