THE PHILOSOPHICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SUPREME COURT’S JUDGMENT OF 19 APRIL 2022 IN CASE NO 816/687/16

Abstract

This article examines the philosophical and methodological significance for judicial practice in Ukraine, in the context of resolving tax disputes, of the Supreme Court’s judgment of 19 April 2022 in Case No. 816/687/16. The research methodology is based on axiological, anthropological, socio-cultural, hermeneutic and systemic approaches, as well as the general scientific principles of historicism and objectivity. The general and specific conceptual prerequisites for the emergence of the aforementioned Supreme Court decision have been identified; the Court’s argumentative discourse therein has been analysed, as have the validity of its conclusions in this case and its impact on judicial practice. A general conclusion is substantiated that the Supreme Court’s ruling of 19 April 2022 in Case No. 816/687/16 can be regarded as a kind of Copernican revolution in its conceptual approaches and argumentative practice regarding the resolution of tax disputes, which stem from the controversial understanding and interpretation of the principle of stability of tax legislation by the parties to tax relations – taxpayers and the tax authorities. In contrast to the traditional practice of adopting a reductionist approach when resolving tax disputes, the Supreme Court applied a systemic approach to resolving the tax dispute in this case, which was consistent with the systemic nature of tax law, tax legal relations and taxation. This constitutes its key innovation in the resolution of tax disputes, as well as the philosophical and methodological significance of this Supreme Court ruling. In resolving the dispute between the claimant and the defendant, the Court paid particular attention to its key substantive aspects, above all to the compliance of the interests and actions of the parties to the dispute with the requirements of the Constitution of Ukraine. The Supreme Court concluded that, in accordance with the legal classification of amendments to tax legislation generally accepted in the application of the law, a law introducing amendments contrary to sub-paragraph 4.1.9. of paragraph 4.1. of Article 4 of the Tax Code of Ukraine is valid, as it does not contravene the Constitution of Ukraine. The Ukrainian Parliament has not been granted the power by the Constitution to impose restrictions upon itself. It is entitled to amend any of its previous laws, as this constitutes one of the key aspects of its constitutional powers. The Supreme Court concluded that the principle of stability of tax legislation cannot be regarded as altering the procedure for the entry into force or coming into effect of all new tax provisions. There is no conflict between this rule and the principle of stability of tax legislation, as this principle is applied in conjunction with other principles of tax legislation. As the Court held, this rule does not apply only if it contradicts the principle of the rule of law in the context of a taxpayer’s right to peaceful possession of property.