Recognition as a Straw Man for a Taxpayer. Unjustified Power of the Tax Authority or Effective Mechanism?

The paper examines the peculiarities of the institute of a straw man for a taxpayer in Georgian law, and critically analyzes the existing regulation and adjacent or similar legal institutes. It represents an attempt to determine the limits of the tax authority's power and compares a taxpayer with other subjects of private law in the role of creditors. The relevant international experience is briefly discussed in the example of the law of the United States of America, and a solution is proposed to overcome the challenges in the national system.

1. Alting, C., Piercing the Corporate Veil in American and German Law - Liability of Individuals and Entities: A Comparative View, Tisla Journal of Comparative and International Law, Vol. 2, Isssue 2, 187, 1995;
2. Chanturia, L., Commentary on Article 56, Margin 2, Commentary on the Civil Code, Book I, General Part of Civil Law, 2017;
3. Chikviladze, M., Comparative Analysis of Taxes of Post-Soviet Countries (Georgia), Structural and Innovative Problems of Economic Development, Collection of Materials of the International Scientific Conference dedicated to the 65th Birth anniversary of Professor Giorgi Tsereteli, Tbilisi State University, 2017;
4. Commentary on the Civil Procedure Code, Selected Articles, German Society for International Cooperation (GIZ), Tbilisi, 2020;
5. Cox, J. D., Hazen, T. L., Business Organizations Law, 3rd Edition, 2011;
6. Decisions of the Supreme Court on administrative cases, No. 1 Decisions of the Supreme Court of Georgia on administrative cases, 2020, https://old.supremecourt.ge/files/upload-file/pdf/2020wadministr-krebuli1.pdf;
7. Disregarding Corporate Entity in Settling Accounts between Close Corporation and its Stockholder or Stockholders, 100 American Law Reports 2nd, 385, West Group, 2008;
8. Internal Revenue Code, Section 6901,
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2011-title26/pdf/USCODE-2011-title26.pdf;
9. Nadaraia, L., Rogava, Z., Bolkvadze, B., Commentary on the Tax Code of Georgia, Book Two, 2012, https://library.iliauni.edu.ge/wpcontent/uploads/2021/06/60.-saqarthvelos-sagadasakhado-kodeqsiskomentari-tsigni-meore.pdf;
10. Newton, W. H., Transferee Liability under Section 6901 of the Code,
12 Houston Law Review, 820, 1975;
11. Pipia, G, Commentaries on the Tax Code, 2020;
12. Rüthers, B., Stadler, A., Allgemeiner Teil des BGB, 16. Aufl. § 25 Rn. 7;
13. Smith, A., An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, London, 1904,
https://oll-resources.s3.us-east2.amazonaws.com/oll3/store/titles/237/Smith_0206-01_EBk_v6.0.pdf.
14. Zubitashvili, N., Liability of the Partner for the Obligations of the Corporation During the Insolvency of the Company – Exception Cases from the Principle of Liability, dissertation defended at Tbilisi State University, 2016, 74;
15. Judgment of the Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court of April 16, 2019 in the case No. Bs-1191(k-18);
16. Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case No. As-1158-1104-2014;
17. Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case No. As-1332-2023;
18. Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case No. As-571-879-09;
19. Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case No. As-891-1177-09;
20. No. 1777 constitutional complaint of March 30, 2023,
https://constcourt.ge/ka/judicial-acts?legal=15371;
21. Ruling of the Tbilisi Court of Appeal of July 3, 2023 in the case No. 3b/1205-23;
22. Judgment No. 1/1/403,427 of the Constitutional Court of 2008 in the
case “Canadian citizen Hussein Ali and Georgian citizen Elene Kirakosian v. the Parliament of Georgia;
23. No. 1520 Constitutional Submission of June 30, 2020.
24. Chase v. Commissioner, 59 T.C.M. (CCH) 261, 264, 1990;
25. Chevrol v. France, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=002-7105;
26. Formin v. Moldova, pars. 22-34, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/pdf/?library=ECHR&id=001-106789&filename=001-106789.pdf&TID=thkbhnilzk;
27. G.M. Leasing Corp. v. United States, 429 U.S. 338, 1977;
28. Hirvisaari v. Finland, pars. 30-33, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-59682;
29. Seryavin and others v. Ukraine, pars. 55-62, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-103279;
30. Suominen v. Finland https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/docx/?library=ECHR&id=001-61178&filename=CASE%20OF%20SUOMINEN%20v.%20FINLAND.docx&logEvent=False;
31. Valley Finance, Inc. v. United States, 629 F.2d 162 (D.C. Cir. 1980);
32. https://info.parliament.ge/file/1/BillReviewContent/208646?;
33. https://libquotes.com/albert-bushnell-hart/quote/lbi1f6j;
34. https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/1043717?publication=0;
35. https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/16492?publication=98;
36. https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/29962?publication=167;
37. https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/30346?publication=36;
38. https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/31702?publication=131;
39. https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/32842?publication=69;
40. https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/4586120?publication=0;
41. https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/4595604?publication=0#DOCUMENT:1;
42. https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/5230186?publication=9#DOCUMENT:1;
43. https://www.constcourt.ge/ka/judicial-acts?legal=9738;
44. https://www.matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/16426?publication=263.