Özet:

The principle of rule of law requires that the actions of the State be subject to judicial review. The efficiency of such review would not only benefit the plaintiff but the public as well. Judges in tax litigation are therefore embodied with the authority and duty to undertake research ex officio regarding issues relating to both the procedure and merits of the case, since tax litigation, as a field of public law, is oriented to ascertaining the truth without being limited to the claims and defenses of the parties. This study aims to analyze the inquisitorial procedure in tax litigation under Turkish law in light of relevant legislation, legal literature and court precedents as well as the applicability this procedure in French law. This paper suggests that the limitations applicable for the inquisitorial procedure under Turkish law render it to become a mechanism which does not correspond with its functional objectives. In other words, the inquisitorial procedure cannot fully serve the realization of its functional objectives, namely, ascertaining the truth without being limited to the claims and defenses of the parties and ensuring an efficient judicial review of the State for the benefit of the public because of the limitations of this procedure under Turkish law. Witness testimony, for example, is not contrary to the methods used in tax litigation in contrast with the opinions of some scholars and some court decisions. As a matter of fact, the special regulations provided in article 3 and repeated article 378 of the Tax Procedural Law require the availability of witness testimony in tax litigation

Anahtar Kelimeler: