In the process TAX LITIGATION been established almost as a dogma unchanged, that the burden of proof is on the party challenging the action dictated by the tax, whatever its content, also has said that this a priori distribution of the burden of proof does not become only the principle that WHO CLAIMED TEST, but a peculiar characteristic of the acts that are challenged in these processes, which are estimated according to the law until proven otherwise, what is ordinarily known as the legality of administrative actions tax content.
By means of modern Venezuelan doctrine, specializing in tax law allow me to draw some conclusions about these thoughts:
Administrative actions tax content certainly has the presumption LEGITIMACY that protect the rest of the acts of the public, but that does not mean always and in any case the Tax Administration is freed from the burden of proving the grounds for its expression of will, trial or knowledge, when such event has been contested in court.
The legitimacy of acts of tax imposed on the subject content nonconformist TO TAKE CHARGE administrative or judicial proceedings against the act, but this can not be interpreted as an automatic reversal of the burden of proof or as a relief from the burden of tax administration to test the foundations of the act, it would mean the effects of hypertrophy presumption to an area not having the same express their rules in the legal norms that regulate the distribution of the burden of proof at trial.
Certainly the law grants certain benefits or privileges to the Tax adjectives to facilitate the fulfillment of their duties of inspection, assessment and collection of taxes, especially given the lack of cooperation of the contributors to violate their formal duties by not providing or even intentionally hide information from which only they have and one of those benefits or privileges adjectives, perhaps the most outrageous, is the presumption of faith of the tax records.
However, this presumption of faith, never and can never be equated with public faith in itself a public document makes only a provisional value as evidence on the veracity of the facts described in the report.
Moreover, this assumption runs counter to the presumption of correctness accompanying the affidavits filed by taxpayers under Article 147 of the Tax Code and the principle of good faith that have relations between public administration and managed, mandated by Articles 141 of the constitution, 12 of the Organic Law on Public Administration and 9 of the Law on Administrative Procedure Simplification.
Given the above, we conclude that regardless of the presumption of legitimacy of the final acts issued by the tax authority and accuracy of tax assessments, are fully applicable to the general principles on the distribution the burden of proof under Articles 1354 of the Civil Code and 506 of the Code of Civil Procedure. UNTIL NEXT FRIDAY (...)