Özet:

Norm conflicts in legal theory is a subject which has been intensively studied. In this regard, authors like KELSEN, ROSS, RAZ, DWORKIN, MUNZER, ELHAG/BREUKER/BROUWER and PECZENIK have asserted different ideas on determination and classification of norm conflicts. The aforementioned ideas scrutinize the conflict problem by abstract classifications or abbreviate it to a specific logic like the deontic logic. Therefore, none of these approaches has been preferred in analyzing the conflict between the tax norms. Instead of this, a new criterion has been suggested for the determination of norm conflict and a new classification has been made pursuant to this new criterion. In this regard, norm conflict has been described as to mean where the application of a norm violates another norm and a classification which is based on the similarities between the circumstances of two independent applicable rules has been revealed. A conflict between the two norms of which behavioral circumstances are the same is a logical conflict. Logical conflicts are separated into two as total and partial norm conflicts basing upon the differences between the legal consequence element and the other circumstances. A conflict between the two norms which have different behavioral circumstances is a “real conflict”. Procedural tax norms take part in many codes like the Administrative Procedural Law and Procedural Administrative Tax Law and the Law on the Collection Procedure of Public Claims. In this study, the conflicts between the procedural tax norms have been qualified as “partial norm conflicts”. In this regard, many of the conflicts between the aforementioned norms have its source from the incompatibilities between the “other circumstances” of the independent norm in art. 2/1-a of Administrative Procedural Law. A real conflict between the procedural tax norms has not been encountered

Anahtar Kelimeler: