Abstract

Evidence in tax proceedings can be anything that can help to clarify the case and is not unlawful. The Tax Ordinance Act does not contain a definition of legal evidence, which requires undertaking the search for the meaning of this concept in the science of tax law and settled judicial decisions. In practice, as to this issue, arises a problem related to deciding whether to resort in tax proceedings to evidence obtained by means of illegal or faulty procedural acts. However, basing the trial decision on evidence obtained in violation of the principle of legalism, that is an evidence contrary to the law in the light of the Tax Ordinance Act, bears serious procedural consequences. Breach of the principle of legalism by the tax authorities in the evidentiary proceedings results in the obligation to eliminate from the legal transactions the decision taken on its basis. It happens because the use of evidence obtained in violation of legal provisions means that, as unlawful, it cannot be relevant for determining the circumstances of the case because procedural goals can be achieved by acting in a manner that was provided for in the legal provisions serving in that sense as a warranty for the party in the proceedings.