صابر الماسی خانی

Taxpayers mostly wish to avoid paying or paying lower taxes. Lower payment or non-payment is sometimes done by violation of tax laws, other times not a violation. If paying lower tax don't violate the law, it will be either legitimate or illegitimate. Paying lower taxes illegitimately by using legal means is called tax avoidance, which creates a tax gap and erodes tax equality. For this reason, the rise of anti-tax avoidance rules is necessary, and in the Iranian legal system, we have not currently comprehensive rules on anti-avoidance. In this article, the authors have a study on the immature status of tax avoidance rules by an analytical-descriptive and critical approach. The present study has been done in three categories: firstly, on Rules and regulations of the Iranian legal system, secondly on Anti-avoidance rules and doctrines, and, thirdly on the challenge of creating anti-avoidance rules and the dimensions of the existence of these rules. Consequently, we have concluded that The Anti-avoidance rules have not been maturely been raised in the Iranian Legal System and this situation becomes more understandable by the study on foreign law. In addition, there are some challenges in the emergence of anti-avoidance rules which arise in two dimensions: substance and jurisdiction.

The existence of an effective labor adjudication system is one of the most important criteria in guaranteeing workers' rights, because in a dispute between a worker and the employer, the rights of the parties, especially workers, are guaranteed in the best way. Consequently, studying the other country’s adjudication systems can be useful in discovering the strengths and defaults of the domestic system. In this regard, one of the most modern labor adjudication systems belongs to Germany, which has created an independent judicial structure for labor proceedings. For the above reasons, the main question of this essay is that what achievements have the german system for the Iranian system. This research that is based on the analytical-descriptive method has investigated the position, structure, jurisdiction and, procedure of Iranian and German labor adjudication system by methodological principle in comparative law called "functionalism". The results of this study are to be outlined in three issues; the principle of judicialization and independence in labor adjudication, creating functional mechanisms for executing negotiation in pre-trial or in-trial and, making an efficient precedent that are needs of the Iranian system.