The Difference Between Taxation and Administrative Fees From the Perspective of Administrative Law

Xi LIU

Abstract


What is tax? What is administrative fee? It is the first question to be proposed in the study on administrative fee. Connotations and denotations of administrative fee could be only determined based on the comparison of administrative fee and tax. The prime difference between tax and fee could be seen from the following three points. First of all, the purpose of collection is different. The purpose or attached purpose for the government to collect tax is to increase fiscal revenues, and offer general and ordinary government services to the public. While the purpose to collect fee is to make up the cost spent in specific services for sake of individuals. Secondly, tax refers to public debts without reciprocal payment, while fee refers to reciprocal payment of specific public services. Thirdly, tax compliant with “capability payment principle” determines tax rate according to “taxation on capability principle” in measuring taxation liability. While by contrast, fee compliant with “user payment principle” or “beneficiary payment principle” determines rate according to “cost or fee compensation principle” or “fee coverage principle” in measuring payment liability.


Keywords


Tax administrative fee; Cost compensation; User payment principle

Full Text:

PDF

References


Bloom v. City of Fort Collins, 784 P.2d 304, 310-11 (Colo. 1989).

Bolt v. City of Lansing, 587 N.W.2d 264, 269 (Mich. 1998).

Bolt v. City of Lansing, 587 N.W.2d 264, 269 (Mich. 1998).

Butler v. Supreme Judicial Court, 611 A.2d 987, 990 (Me. 1992)

Chen, Q. X. (1997). Tax, fee, benefit charge and special common tax. Lawyer Communication, December(171).

City of Ocean Springs v. Homebuilders Ass’n, 932 So.2d 44, 55-56, 61 (Miss. 2006).

Eastern Diversified Properties, Inc. v. Montgomery County, 570 A.2d 854-855 (Md. 1990).

Executive Aircraft Consulting, Inc. v. City of Newton, 845 P.2d 57, 62 (Kan. 1993).

Ge, K. C. (1997). Discussion on the legal property of money payment liability. Tai wan, Yuetan Publishing House Co., Ltd.

Ge, K. C. (2005). Basic issues in tax law - Finance and constitution. Taiwan: Angle Press.

Head Money Cases, 112 U.S. 580, 590 (1884).

Jiang, L. H. (2012). On the definition of the scope of administrative fees. Faw, (7).

Joseph, B-H. (2013). How is the money used? Federal and state cases distinguishing taxes and fees. Tax Foundation.

Keleher v. New England Tel. & Tel. Co., 947 F.2d 547, 549 (2d Cir. 1991).

Kootenai County Property Ass’n v. Kootenai County, 769 P.2d

Kootenai County Property Ass’n v. Kootenai County, 769 P.2d 556-57 (Idaho 1989).

Laurie, R. (2004). Taxes, fees, assessments, dues, and the “Get What You Pay For” model of local government. 56 Fla. L. Rev.

Li, K. M., & Xiao, Z. C. (2002). Discussion on the relation between fee and tax and the legislation of administrative fee. Zhejiang Social Sciences, (3).

Liu, J. W., & Xiong, W. (2017). Fiscal tax act. Beijing: Law Press.

Liu, S. (2000). Discussion on the setting and supervision of administrative fee. Political and Legal Forum Journal of China University of Political Science and Law, (3).

Lu, J. H. (2013). Finance and tax (2nd ed.). Beijing: Fudan University Press.

Mississippi Power & Light Co. v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 601 F.2d 223, 228, 231-32 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1102, 100 S. Ct. 1066, 62 L. Ed. 2d 787 (1980).

San Juan Cellular, 967 F.2d at 685.

Schneider Transport, Inc. v. Cattanach, 657 F.2d 128, 132 (7th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 909, 102 S. Ct. 1257, 71 L. Ed. 2d 448 (1982).

Silva v. City of Attleboro, 908 N.E.2d 722, 725 (Mass. 2009)

Sinclair Paint Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 937 P.2d at 1354-55

Stewart v. Verde River Irrigation & Power Dist., 68 P.2d 335 (Ariz. 1937).

Wisconsin v. Yellow Freight System, Inc., 96 Wis.2d 484, 292 N.W.2d 361(1980), aff’d, 101 Wis.2d 142, 303 N.W.2d 834(1981).

Xiong, W., & Liu, J. W. (2004). Basic theory of tax law. Beijing: Peking University Press.

Ying, S. N, (1998). New theory of administrative law. Beijing: China Fangzheng Press.

Zhang, J. S. (2014). Reason, basis and supervision of administrative fee. Administrative Law Review, (2).




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3968/10941

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2019 Canadian Social Science

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Reminder

  • How to do online submission to another Journal?
  • If you have already registered in Journal A, then how can you submit another article to Journal B? It takes two steps to make it happen:

Submission Guidelines for Canadian Social Science

We are currently accepting submissions via email only. The registration and online submission functions have been disabled.

Please send your manuscripts to css@cscanada.net，or css@cscanada.org for consideration. We look forward to receiving your work.

 Articles published in Canadian Social Science are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC-BY).

 

Canadian Social Science Editorial Office

Address: 1020 Bouvier Street, Suite 400, Quebec City, Quebec, G2K 0K9, Canada.
Telephone: 1-514-558 6138 
Website: Http://www.cscanada.net; Http://www.cscanada.org 
E-mail:caooc@hotmail.com; office@cscanada.net

Copyright © Canadian Academy of Oriental and Occidental Culture