Abstract:At the current stage of the development of social relations, in particular tax relations, their proper legal regulation remains an urgent issue, which should objectively correspond to the level (degree) of their development and at the same time fully satisfy the needs and interests of not only the state, society, but also the citizen. Undoubtedly, tax relations, within which an administrative seizure is imposed on the property of a taxpayer, are not an exception, since during the implementation of material tax norms, which in general establish the right to apply an administrative seizure, its types: conditional, or a full, exhaustive list of grounds , specific procedures are also used, which in general can be combined into a separate tax process and are regulated precisely by procedural norms, which have a specific nature and are aimed at ensuring the procedures for fulfilling the tax obligation. Today, as in the vast majority of countries in the world, there are quite frequent cases of evasion of taxes, fees and mandatory payments in Ukraine, which is a manifestation of the lack of goodwill of citizens aimed at the proper fulfillment of their obligation to pay established by the Constitution of Ukraine taxes All this has its logical and natural consequence that the authorized state authorities (controlling bodies) get the right to use the provided legal means of tax debt repayment. The article examines the issue of changing the established judicial practice in the issue of the wording of the concept of «rights dispute» when considering applications by the tax authority to confirm the validity of the taxpayer’s administrative property in a separate proceeding. The Supreme Court, as part of the judicial chamber for consideration of cases regarding taxes, fees and other mandatory payments of the Administrative Court of Cassation, departs from previous legal conclusions, according to which the appeal in the judicial procedure of the order to conduct a tax audit by the courts was considered a «dispute of law», and therefore they closed a separate proceeding at the request of the supervisory body. The consequences of such a change in judicial practice and options for exiting the newly created legal collapse are studied.

On the Evidence Effectiveness in Tax Administrative Litigations

Analysis on the Types of Administrative Litigation——Taking the Administrative Trials in Zhangzhou As an Example

Tax Administration in China: is It Rule Without Law?

Suing the Government under Weak Rule of Law: Evidence from Administrative Litigation Reform in China

On the Legality Requirements of Evidence in Civil Action

The Selection of Litigation against Government Agencies: Evidence from China

Reflect on the System of Evidence Spoliation in Civil Procedure —Perspective on Theory, Practice and System Optimization

Suing the Government under Independent Jurisdiction: Evidence from Administrative Litigation Reform in China

New Doctrine of Legal Evidence

Appraisal of the Jurisdictional Issues Confronting Prosecutors of Tax Related Disputes and Constitutional Bottlenecks

Analyze on Countermeasures to Delay of Evidence Submission in Civil Procedures

How does environmental regulation affect corporate tax burdens? Evidence from China's environmental courts

Tax enforcement and corporate financial irregularities: Evidence from China

On the Ways to Crack China's Fiscal and Tax Law Plight:Focusing on the Problems and Breakthroughs

Modification of Civil Procedure Law and Improvement of Civil Evidence System

On the Judge's Role in the Usage of Evidence under the Model of Adversary Trial

The Analysis Of Administrative Litigation Procedure

The evolution of judicial practice in disputes about the use of administrative seizure of property by tax authorities

The Rules of Evidence in Procedural Adjudication

Administrative procedures as tax enforcement tools

Application of the Administrative Compulsion Law to the Tax Collection and Management