Post by account_disabled on Feb 27, 2024 1:01:01 GMT -5
One of the pillars of psychoanalytic reasoning reveals an apparent paradox whose understanding, in addition to illuminating the paths we follow, can help us understand and prepare for a better future. Individuality, according to this premise, is not an instance that explains itself; it is reflexive, it depends on otherness. In other words: an individual only exists and recognizes himself and is recognized as such because of another individual. It would be basic if it weren't for our habit, in law, of opposing and not integrating: how would we define ourselves in our individuality without at least one partner that would give us visibility (and existence, therefore)? In its general theoretical portion, law maneuvers this idea although without giving credit to other domains of knowledge): there is no space for the deontic, as the general theory of law teaches us, except from the notion of intersubjectivity.
In other words no one is in a legal relationship with themselves because, strictly speaking, no one considers themselves individualizable in themselves. And if this is true for law in general, it is also true, naturally, in all its ramifications. Tax law, procedural law and the combination of these two spheres resulting in the so-called tax procedural law β are bases that, perhaps due to our empiricism, express the ideas presented with remarkable visibility. Let's take Chinese Europe Phone Number List the tax first. Putting into practice the otherness that permeates human experience, tax law would be better understood and pragmatically treated if, by blurring the object that typifies it the tax it began to be seen with exclusive attention on the subjects who, in the process of mutual definition, they become inter-individualized and begin to have not only legal but social expression (a word taken with the intention of "macro-dimensioning" the phenomenon to which we are referring.
Tax authorities and taxpayers: the subjects we refer to, defined and identifiable in their legal-tax individuality not by themselves, but by reason of their counterpart, represent, in this view, the defining tone of tax law. Procedural law, a branch that is naturally complex in its structures, is perhaps easier to understand when we focus on the phenomenon that is specific to it through the proposed lens β after all, if the generating fact of procedural relations is conflict, the otherness reaches the verge of obviousness. The idea of ββthe "other", often pointed out in a negative way, in an inappropriately belligerent tone, jumps out at us. And so it must be, by derivation, when we talk about tax proceedings: tax authorities and taxpayers requalify themselves, in the procedural instance, as plaintiff and defendant, not necessarily in that order, one and the other defining themselves existentially and legally.
In other words no one is in a legal relationship with themselves because, strictly speaking, no one considers themselves individualizable in themselves. And if this is true for law in general, it is also true, naturally, in all its ramifications. Tax law, procedural law and the combination of these two spheres resulting in the so-called tax procedural law β are bases that, perhaps due to our empiricism, express the ideas presented with remarkable visibility. Let's take Chinese Europe Phone Number List the tax first. Putting into practice the otherness that permeates human experience, tax law would be better understood and pragmatically treated if, by blurring the object that typifies it the tax it began to be seen with exclusive attention on the subjects who, in the process of mutual definition, they become inter-individualized and begin to have not only legal but social expression (a word taken with the intention of "macro-dimensioning" the phenomenon to which we are referring.
Tax authorities and taxpayers: the subjects we refer to, defined and identifiable in their legal-tax individuality not by themselves, but by reason of their counterpart, represent, in this view, the defining tone of tax law. Procedural law, a branch that is naturally complex in its structures, is perhaps easier to understand when we focus on the phenomenon that is specific to it through the proposed lens β after all, if the generating fact of procedural relations is conflict, the otherness reaches the verge of obviousness. The idea of ββthe "other", often pointed out in a negative way, in an inappropriately belligerent tone, jumps out at us. And so it must be, by derivation, when we talk about tax proceedings: tax authorities and taxpayers requalify themselves, in the procedural instance, as plaintiff and defendant, not necessarily in that order, one and the other defining themselves existentially and legally.