Влияние развития цифровых платформ на эффективность налогового администрирования

The ability of an authorized person to exercise their rights without restrictions can lead to arbitrariness, negatively impacting the stability and resilience of the civil law system, as well as the ability of other entities to exercise their property rights. This is unacceptable in a rule-of-law state. Therefore, in the context of a legal state, it is necessary to develop and establish an effective mechanism for limiting property rights, one that ensures a balance between the property interests of authorized persons and the opposing rights of other individuals and the interests of society. Such limitations should promote stability, the proper development of property rights for individuals, and their appropriate exercise. Restrictions on individuals’ property rights can prevent unlawful behavior for the sake of societal interests and the rights of other authorized persons. When setting limitations, the nature of subjective civil rights must be taken into account, as they are more fundamental and primary compared to restrictions. The essence of subjective civil rights, which are exercised at the discretion of the individual, must be preserved, provided that this does not contradict important societal interests or the rights of other authorized persons. At the same time, the fulfillment of private interests, which are prioritized, should be ensured as much as possible. To this end, when imposing restrictions on the property rights of individuals, it is essential to consider the phenomena and regularities in the development of property rights, as well as the interests of other individuals and society. This idea involves the necessity of proportionate restrictions on property rights, aiming for a sufficient level of limitation while maintaining the ability to exercise property rights, considering the rights of others and societal interests. The limitations on individuals’ property rights should be based on key principles such as proportionality, reasonableness, legality, and social orientation. The application of these fundamental ideas in legal regulation helps protect the rights of individuals and ensures their proper exercise in compliance with the rights of all subjects of civil law. A promising and practically significant approach to identifying the specific characteristics of restrictions on individuals’ property rights, according to Ukraine’s civil law system, is their classification within the major civil law institutions that govern property rights (property law, contract law, non-contractual obligations, and inheritance law). One of the prerequisites for establishing restrictions on individuals’ property rights is the public interest or societal necessity that justifies limiting an individual’s rights.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to consider if self-employed entrepreneurs, a class of individuals who require enforceable property rights to create new firms and ideas that could increase a society’s material living standards, constitute an individual property rights enforcement mechanism.Design/methodology/approachWith data from the General Social Survey, the authors estimate the parameters of mixed-effects categorical regression specifications to measure the effect of self-employment on confidence in the US Supreme Court, raising and donating funds for social or political activities, and on trying to persuade others to share political views.FindingsThe findings suggest that self-employed entrepreneurs are one of the guarantors of a constitutional democracy based on an ethic of individual property rights, and public policies that are pro-entrepreneurship help mitigate the risk of constitutional failure, and maximize society’s material living and ethical standards.Research limitations/implicationsThe results are based on cross-sectional data, which do not account for dynamic changes in preferences.Practical implicationsThe findings suggest that self-employed entrepreneurs are a enforcement mechanism and a guarantor of an ethic of private property rights necessary for the ongoing success and viability of a constitutional democracy based on individual property rights.Social implicationsThe findings suggest that as entrepreneurs constitute an enforcement mechanism for individual property rights, to the extent that entrepreneurialism also cultivates individual virtue entrepreneurs also serve as guarantors of a moral and ethical society that is based on virtue, which results in a constitutional democracy with high material living and ethical/moral standards.Originality/valueThis paper is among the first to empirically test whether entrepreneurs are an enforcement mechanism for individual property rights.

This article invokes a concept of ‘community-based individual property rights’ as individual property rights recognized in a communal property system by virtue of community membership. It employs mixed methods, including a comparative analysis that reviews and develops the ‘bundle of rights’ perspective in the Chinese context and an analysis of a large dataset of judgments recently made publicly accessible. It sets out an analytical framework which appears more advantageous in helping researchers arrive at a better explanation of the current rights structure in rural China. The article concludes that the concept of ‘community-based individual property rights’ has greater analytical and explanatory force than existing concepts based on continental civil law. The conclusion also challenges the common assumption that common law property theories never work in non-common law jurisdictions and that the Chinese property system is irrelevant to developing common law property theories.

The Housing Crisis and the Constitution

The arguments that property rights and taxation positively affect development are well established in separate literatures, but the link between property rights and taxation is under-studied. To address this gap, we theorize that formalization of individual property rights facilitates economic exchange at scale, providing a viable opportunity for individuals to improve their economic standing, in exchange for which property owners assent to pay taxes. We illustrate the argument by comparing the historical evolution of tax states in early modern Europe and colonial Africa. Empirically, we examine the links in sub-Saharan Africa between (1) the ease of access to state-recorded information on land ownership and assent to paying taxes using individual-level data from Afrobarometer, and (2) the formalization of individual property rights on land, measured through novel data on the extent of cadastral records, and government revenue from taxes on individuals at the cross-country level. Supplementary material Online Appendix

The "Rule of Law" and "Individual Property Rights" are often regarded as necessary conditions for economic growth and development. Recently, the common ownership of First Nation reserve lands in Canada was identified as "Dead capital." Apparently, the problems of delayed development can be traced to a dysfunctional property system. A serious critique of collective ownership with its concomitant high transactions costs suggests a stronger on-reserve role for market relations. Only by individualizing land ownership and coming out from under the Indian Act can the commercial potential of reserve lands be realized. Clearly, a closer look at the property rights paradigm is required. To assist with a discussion of such proposals for development, this paper will employ a critical economic history approach, by (i) explaining the foundations of the property rights paradigm; (ii) employing two case summaries to demonstrate how US and Canadian authorities directed the conversion of collective Indigenous land holdings to individual transferable titles; and (iii) identifying some outcomes associated with the creation of transferable individual rights in property. Two case summaries demonstrate how economic history can illustrate the private property rights experiences of Indigenous peoples. Coercion by the United States government resulted in the breakup (allotment) and sale of large Indian territorial reservation lands. In the Canadian prairie west, Métis entitlements took the form of grants of millions of acres of scrip and the assignment or conveyance of their interests left them without a land base. In these cases, lands and entitlements ostensibly reserved for Indigenous peoples were diverted to emerging settler land markets. Evidence suggests that the weaker property rights of speculators/settlers triumphed over the legally recognized rights of Indigenous peoples. In other words, the Rule of Law in respect of property was somewhat different for settlers/speculators and Indigenous peoples. In these historical cases, the individualization of collective ownership into transferable assets had similar outcomes that do not seem to accord with predictions that economic growth will ensue from the promotion of private property rights and the reduced transaction costs.

Legally protected individual private property rights and a constrained state are doctrines of neoclassical economics-derived development theory. But what about China? It lacks strong rule of law, property rights can be collective, contested and ambiguous, and the state is relatively unconstrained and maintains a central role in the economy; yet it has seen impressive economic growth to take it to the world’s second largest economy. I argue that in the absence of legal/rational protections of individual property rights, political and social networks can provide alternative methods of property protection, allowing for economic development – with political protection substituting for legal. The novel claim I make is that ambiguity of property rights can provide opportunities and spaces for development and innovation, with the building of meaning and institutions found in a transitional state, where rules are unclear and contested, and where formal rules can “catch up” if apparent success can be demonstrated.

In understanding rights across cultures, critics tend to view individual or human rights as unique to the West and alien to community-based or authoritarian Eastern cultures. This essay challenges this fetishism of individual rights by tracing social and intellectual movements in the West that contested the absolutism of individual rights based on ownership of private property, and by pointing to the erosion of individual property rights in the rise of corporate monoliths and the military-industrial complex. The essay goes on to argue that the recognition of the people's rights as guarantee of individuals' freedom and welfare underlay struggles for political power as well as for socioeconomic rights in the Chinese Revolution. The Chinese Revolution is fundamentally a rights struggle against the infringement of rights—traditional, territorial, property, and socioeconomic rights—by imperialist powers and the ruling native class. This struggle for the people's socioeconomic rights continues in the age of globalization, as Chinese workers' are increasingly deprived of their security and well-being.

Seeing the increasing focus on the economic sector, it requires a guarantee rights institution that is able to provide legal certainty. In the UUHT, land rights can be made into mortgages, property rights, business use rights, building use rights and use rights over state land, while PP 18 of 2021 explains usufructuary rights can be used as collateral for mortgage rights. In the phenomenon that occurs, usufructuary rights over individual rights experience rejection by the banking system when they are used as collateral for mortgage rights. Based on these problems, the formulation of the problem is how to implement guarantees for usufructuary certificates over individual property rights related to refusal of financing by banks and how legal certainty guarantees mortgage rights over usufructuary certificates over individual property rights related to refusal of financing by banks. The theory used is Legal Certainty from Gustav Radbruch and Satrio's Guarantee Law Theory. The method used in this study is normative juridical research, namely library law research or secondary data with sources of primary, secondary and tertiary legal materials, supported by interviews. The research approach used is the statutory approach, conceptual approach, analytical approach and case approach, and legal material collection techniques are carried out by identifying and inventorying positive legal rules, literature books, journals and other sources of legal materials. For technical analysis of legal material, it is carried out by means of legal interpretation (interpretation) of grammatical interpretation and systematic interpretation and methods of legal construction. The results of research on usufructuary rights on individual land cannot be encumbered with mortgage rights, this makes it ambiguous between the UUHT and PP 18 of 2021. There needs to be an affirmation in PP 18 of 2021 as well as the guarantee of usufructuary rights so that they can be in line with UUHT

The cadastral system as a civilian register of a property has a fundamental role in every society because it ensures the relationship between the land and the humankind. This relationship is evident in the form of property rights and established in many different manners from the full control, through communal forms of tenure, to the individual property rights. This chapter has the aim to deal with the nature and categories of the existing cadastral systems. It will highlight the new approaches and visions to establish cadastral systems that will meet the requirements of re-engineering the framework of land development projects. An overview of the state of the art of the modern concepts of cadastral systems will be provided such as Cadastre 2014, 3D Cadastre, and Marine Cadastre. The goal behind this approach is to enable decision makers to have an idea on the existing paradigms of land administration and to master the relationships between humankind and land, infrastructures and business systems, and between the human being and technological issues.

Family law confers legal rights and duties upon 'family' members, which may, at times, conflict with the exercise of their individual rights.1 A tension between competing rights can be seen in the context of matrimonial property law, a focus of Lecture XI in Dicey's Law and Opinion in England during the 19th Century. The tension in this context has generally been between the property rights of individuals and the extent to which these rights are affected by marriage. Such questions are not simply of historical interest, however, as the legal regulation of matrimonial property has yet to be resolved satisfactorily. In the twenty-first century there is an added dimension. Revolutionary changes in family formation means that marriage can no longer be said to be the social norm. The question, therefore, is no longer confined to 'How does marriage affect individual property rights?' What must also be asked is 'How does cohabitation and family membership generally, affect the property rights of the individuals involved in the familial relationship?' This chapter considers how the courts and the legislature respectively have struggled in determining the ownership of (quasi)-matrimonial property and how their responses have been informed by contemporary societal trends.

Until now, Congress has been content to let the judiciary draw the line on takings by deciding when the government must pay compensation to private property owners.However, some members of the 104th Congress proposed new legislation which would significantly change the current federal approach to regulatory takings.'These legislative proposals sought to replace much of the case law interpreting the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause.Despite judicial decisions favoring private property owners in the last few years, many in Congress believe that a clear standard on regulatory takings is neededa standard which will better protect private property rights in the face of government regulation by reducing the amount of property value diminution required before the government must compensate private property owners.These members believe expanded protection of property rights is consistent with the intentions behind the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause.At the heart of the conflict is the tension between individual rights and the interests of the public, or, as some would say, the will of the majority.There are no easy answers to this timeless dilemma.

How aware are archaeologists of the potential impact on their profession of increasing emphasis in public discourse on human rights, individual property rights and cultural rights? There has been an intense concentration on the concept of human rights since World War II; promoting the idea and refining the concept. One area still unclear is the right to property as an individual right. Is it a human right and, if so, what does it encompass? There are no absolute answers to these questions. They depend on the time and the place. In particular, the development of cultural rights, with its emphasis on the public interest, will be significant. Individual property rights already circumscribe the conduct of archaeology in many countries. Cultural rights will have a further impact on such aspects as the conduct of fieldwork, publication and the use made of archaeological results. These rights are now under development. But archaeology figures little in the discussions and that will be the state of things unless archaeologists themselves insist on being heard. This will involve organization, both nationally and internationally, on a permanent basis to monitor and influence those in a position of power.

A debate is taking place in Australia regarding potential changes to the legislation governing what proportion of owners must agree before apartment buildings can be redeveloped and whether a collective sale model should be adopted in order to facilitate urban renewal. To date, urban renewal has proven challenging because of difficulties of coordinating renewal within a planning system that relies on the market to deliver housing. This challenge is amplified by the governance framework created to promote multiunit housing—strata title—and associated tensions between communal management and individual property rights. This paper makes particular reference to the implications of this debate in the greater Sydney metropolitan area, which raises universal issues regarding tensions between the government and the market and between individual rights and the collective good. This paper argues that there is a case for changing the legislation, with government involvement required to respond to the significant social issues raised, to guarantee the needs of existing owners and tenants are met, and to ensure that high-quality, economically viable, buildings result.

In the democratic countries, one of the main properties of public policy is to ensure the functioning of a stable economy; it requires special attention to the investigation and prevention of economic crime. However, the economic crime investigation can cause certain side effects, such as restriction or deprivation of property rights of individuals and legal entities. That is why the analysis of the peculiarities of the protection of property rights in the economic crimes investigation is particularly relevant. The purpose of the research is to generalize approaches for understanding the economic crime's nature and structure, analysing effective ways to protect property in the economic crimes investigation, as well as the specifics of releasing property from arrest as a way to protect third party property violated in the economic crimes investigation. Materials and methods: a set of general and special scientific methods was used in a study, in particular, the dialectical method; comparative legal method; methods of analysis and synthesis; formal logical (dogmatic) method; statistical method and generalization method. The empirical basis of the study is the cases of the Supreme Court (Ukraine) and the European Court of Human Rights, statistics of the State Judicial Administration of Ukraine for 2017-2019, as well as the authors' own experience as judge of the Supreme Court and the High Specialized Court of Ukraine for Civil and Criminal Cases. Results: there are two main approaches to understanding the essence of the concept of “economic crime” defined, its main features are identified and the system of economic crimes in Ukraine is characterized. It is argued that the application of such types of punishment for serious and especially serious profit-motivated crimes as special confiscation and confiscation of property is consistent with the practice of the ECHR. The case law of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court on determining the jurisdiction of legal disputes on the release of distrained property, used in the investigation of economic crimes, is summarized. Conclusions: for correct protection of the property rights of individuals and legal entities violated during the investigation of economic crimes, the state must ensure the proper functioning of effective legal means of protection of property rights.