ALSA 2025 meeting

A key issue in both the theory and practice of Chinese tax administrative litigation is whether courts, in light of the tax authorities' inherent advantages in professional expertise, information access, and procedural execution, grant them judicial deference on a universal basis. Based on a quantitative analysis of 391 tax administrative judgments, this study finds that while courts uphold the actions of tax authorities in nearly 70% of cases, the application of judicial deference is not monolithic. Instead, it is significantly influenced by variables such as the nature of the dispute, the hierarchical level of the tax authority, the outcome of administrative reconsideration, and the monetary amount at stake. A binary logistic regression model reveals that courts are significantly more inclined to defer to the tax authority's judgment in cases involving purely factual disputes, decisions made by higher-level authorities, or actions upheld after administrative reconsideration. Conversely, the higher the monetary amount at stake, the more likely the court is to intensify its substantive review, demonstrating a greater emphasis on the protection of taxpayer rights. Nevertheless, this research confirms that tax authorities hold a relatively dominant position in administrative litigation. Therefore, to achieve comprehensive protection of taxpayer rights, it is necessary to enhance specialized tax adjudication mechanisms, clarify judicial review standards, and introduce a 'penetrative adjudication' approach.