Annotation

The article discusses the legal nature of tax liability and its place in the system of public liability, in particular, the author examines the relationship between tax and administrative liability. The author analyzes various approaches existing in the doctrine regarding the definition of the legal nature of tax liability and the issue of the relationship between tax and administrative liability.

First of all, the author reveals the concept of administrative liability and analyzes the goals, as well as the legal nature of sanctions of both tax and administrative liability. Further, the author analyzes the decision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Armenia DCC-1139 dated 18.02.2014 and, disagreeing with the position of the Constitutional Court regarding the exclusively legally restorative nature of tax liability, presents arguments regarding the legal nature of tax liability.

In the context of considering the issue of correlation of tax and administrative liability, the author mentions an equally important and relevant problem of the qualification of offenses, liability for which is provided for both in the Tax Code of the Republic of Armenia and the Administrative Offences Code of the Republic of Armenia, because a direct consequence of the existence of such a legislative opportunity is the problem of bringing a person to double liability for committing the same offenses. The importance of a comparative analysis of the norms on the establishment of public liability in both the Tax Code of the Republic of Armenia and the Administrative Offences Code of the Republic of Armenia lies in eliminating the legislative possibility of bringing a person to double liability, in unifying public liability for tax offenses having the same object and objective side. Meanwhile, the author notes that after the adoption of the said decision, the law enforcement practice of the Republic of Armenia developed in such a way that the Administrative Court began to apply the provisions of the Administrative Offences Code of the Republic of Armenia exclusively to an individual (director of a legal entity), and the Tax Code – in relation to the legal entity itself (see, for example, administrative case VD/4859/05/19).

According to the author, the Administrative Court should abandon the vicious practice of bringing an economic entity to double liability in violation of the principle of non bis in idem for committing the same tax offense.

Keywords: tax liability, administrative liability, double liability, non bis in idem, punitive nature, purpose of liability.