ЕВОЛЮЦІЯ СУДОВОЇ ПРАКТИКИ В СПОРАХ ПРО ЗАСТОСУВАННЯ ПОДАТКОВИМИ ОРГАНАМИ АДМІНІСТРАТИВНОГО АРЕШТУ МАЙНА.

At the current stage of the development of social relations, in particular tax relations, their proper legal regulation remains an urgent issue, which should objectively correspond to the level (degree) of their development and at the same time fully satisfy the needs and interests of not only the state, society, but also the citizen. Undoubtedly, tax relations, within which an administrative seizure is imposed on the property of a taxpayer, are not an exception, since during the implementation of material tax norms, which in general establish the right to apply an administrative seizure, its types: conditional, or a full, exhaustive list of grounds, specific procedures are also used, which in general can be combined into a separate tax process and are regulated precisely by procedural norms, which have a specific nature and are aimed at ensuring the procedures for fulfilling the tax obligation. Today, as in the vast majority of countries in the world, there are quite frequent cases of evasion of taxes, fees and mandatory payments in Ukraine, which is a manifestation of the lack of goodwill of citizens aimed at the proper fulfillment of their obligation to pay established by the Constitution of Ukraine taxes All this has its logical and natural consequence that the authorized state authorities (controlling bodies) get the right to use the provided legal means of tax debt repayment The article examines the issue of changing the established judicial practice in the issue of the wording of the concept of «rights dispute» when considering applications by the tax authority to confirm the validity of the taxpayer’s administrative property in a separate proceeding. The Supreme Court, as part of the judicial chamber for consideration of cases regarding taxes, fees and other mandatory payments of the Administrative Court of Cassation, departs from previous legal conclusions, according to which the appeal in the judicial procedure of the order to conduct a tax audit by the courts was considered a «dispute of law», and therefore they closed a separate proceeding at the request of the supervisory body. The consequences of such a change in judicial practice and options for exiting the newly created legal collapse are studied. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]