司法产品公共性及差异化布局——美国税务诉讼经验  

The Publicity and Differentiated Distribution of Judicial Products ——U.S.Tax Litigation Experience

作　　者：谷佳慧 Gu Jiahui(Law School,Beijing University,Beijing 100871)

机构地区：[1]北京大学法学院,北京100871

出　　处：《河南财经政法大学学报》2019年第3期73-80,共8页Journal of Henan University of Economics and Law

基　　金：北京市社会科学基金重大项目"中国法治三重因素的冲突和融合"阶段性研究成果(项目编号:15ZDA01)

摘　　要：司法服务作为一种公共产品,应具有"非竞争性"与"非排他性"的特征,但在目前的司法实践中,由于司法资源有限且配置不均,司法产品的公共性尚未得到完全展现。改变这种司法困境,可以借用经济学上"产品差异化"观点,重新安排司法产品的差异化布局,在此方面,美国税务诉讼为我们提供了良好的域外经验。美国联邦税务诉讼有三种应诉途径,分别由税务法院、索赔法院和地方法院受理,在起诉背景、巡回审判、陪审团、衡平管辖等方面各据特点,给当事人提供了多元化选择。借鉴美国经验,我国可以构建自己的司法差异化产品格局,通过专门法院与普通法院、跨行政区划法院与地方法院的布局,实现司法资源的重新配置,以实现司法产品的公共属性。As a public product,judicial service should be “non-competitive” and “non- exclusive”.However,due to limited judicial resources and uneven allocation,the publicity of judicial products has not been fully demonstrated in current judicial practice.To change this judicial dilemma,the view of “product differentiation” in economics could rearrange the differentiated distribution of judicial products.In this respect,the US tax lawsuit provides us with good extraterritorial experience.There are three ways to respond to a federal tax lawsuit in the United States,which are handled by the tax court,the claim court and the local court.Drawing on the experience of the United States,China can build its own judicature differentiated products,and achieve the reallocation of judicial resources through the layout of special courts and general courts,cross-administrative district courts and local courts,so as to improve the publicity of judicial products.

关 键 词：公共产品 产品差异化 美国 税务诉讼 

分 类 号：D926.2[政治法律—法学]