FUNCTIONAL PRINCIPLES OF PROVIDING LEGAL ASSISTANCE IN TAX AND LEGAL RELATIONSHIPS: THE CASE OF THE BAR IN UKRAINE

Abstract

The issue of the functional principles of providing legal assistance in tax legal relations has become the subject of active scholarly and practical discussion over the past decade. This is caused by profound changes taking place in the sphere of state financial control, the transformation of the tax administration model, the digitalization of audit procedures, and the overall increase in the conflict intensity of interactions between taxpayers and controlling authorities. The essence of this problem lies in the fact that the modern tax-legal environment has turned into a complex system of legal risks in which an average taxpayer is objectively unable to ensure an adequate level of protection of their rights independently. This, in turn, enhances the role of advocacy as a specialized institution that provides professional legal assistance in an area where the state holds significant power and coercive instruments.

The emergence of the issue of the functional foundations of advocacy specifically in the tax sphere is related to the highly public nature of tax legal relations, as well as the procedural characteristics of resolving tax disputes, which are marked by increased formalization, strict timeframes, reliance on financial evidence, and deep specialization. Under such conditions, an advocate performs not only a representative function but also acts as a legal intermediary, a communication moderator, and a guarantor of procedural equality roles that differ substantially from their functions in private-law disputes. Thus, the problem is not limited to assessing the legal status of an advocate but concerns the effectiveness of the entire mechanism of legal support for taxpayers.

The relevance of the topic is also explained by the fact that Ukraine has not yet established a unified and coherent model of the functional status of an advocate in tax legal relations. Normative acts do not define a separate specialization of a tax advocate, do not differentiate their powers at the pre-trial stage and during tax control, and do not provide special guarantees in interactions with officials of the State Tax Service. As a result, an advocate effectively operates in an area of heightened governmental influence without sufficient mechanisms to protect their professional independence. This problem is intensified by digitalization, which has transformed the rules of evidence and communication: electronic audit reports, digital evidence, and automated risk-profiling algorithms have created new challenges both for taxpayers and for advocates, who do not always have adequate tools for effective response.