Judicial Control over Tax Crime Investigations: A Systematic Literature Review of Taxpayer Rights, Investigative Authority, and Fiscal Law Enforcement
Downloads
Tax crime enforcement requires a balance among fiscal sovereignty, administrative authority, criminal procedure, and judicial protection. Tax authorities require coercive powers to secure public revenue and combat tax evasion; however, these powers may affect taxpayer rights and legal certainty. The existing literature remains fragmented, creating a need for systematic synthesis. This study systematically examined the international literature on judicial control over tax crime investigations, with particular attention to taxpayer rights, investigative authority, procedural safeguards, and fiscal law enforcement. Using a systematic literature review design guided by PRISMA 2020 and a doctrinal-thematic synthesis, the study analyzed Scopus-indexed literature organized into four research-question streams. The first stream examined how judicial control was conceptualized in tax crime and tax enforcement contexts. The second examined how taxpayer rights were balanced against investigative authority. The third identified legal risks arising when judicial review constrained tax investigations. The fourth mapped research gaps concerning repeated or renewed tax investigations following procedural defects. The final synthesis comprised 30 analytical source records across the four research questions: 3 sources for RQ1, 14 sources for RQ2, 11 sources for RQ3, and 2 sources for RQ4. The findings showed that judicial control should not be treated as a binary opposition between taxpayer protection and fiscal enforcement. Instead, it should operate as a calibrated legality mechanism that distinguishes among minor procedural irregularities, rights-affecting defects, and fundamental abuses of process. The novelty of this study lies in proposing a calibrated judicial control model for tax crime investigations that integrates taxpayer rights, investigative authority, procedural remedies, and fiscal recovery.
Al-Billeha, T. (2025). Legislative controls for disciplinary penalties imposed on public servants: A comparative analysis of Jordanian and French legal frameworks. Sriwijaya Law Review, 9(1), 137–156. https://doi.org/10.28946/slrev.Vol9.Iss1.2777.pp137-156
Arti?, N., & Kova?, P. (2025). Legal analysis of the tax enforcement systems in the Republic of Slovenia and the Czech Republic. NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy. https://doi.org/10.2478/nispa-2025-0012
Attia Khalil, A. I. A. (2025). Environmentally significant administrative decisions: A comparative study of domestic and international legal constraints. Environmental Law Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/18785395251366926
Basri, N. (2026). Podchasov v Russia: A new frontier in the crypto-wars before the Strasbourg Court. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 16(1).
Blažo, O. (2020). Proper, transparent and just prioritization policy as a challenge for national competition authorities and prioritization of the Slovak NCA. Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies, 13(22). https://doi.org/10.7172/1689-9024.YARS.2020.13.22.5
Boei, W., & van Dam, J. (2022). Legal protection in the context of international exchange of information upon request between tax authorities. Erasmus Law Review, (2), 76–85. https://doi.org/10.5553/ELR.000221
Cahyonowati, N., Juliarto, A., Ratmono, D., Frendy, & Ismail, A. G. (2026). The process of promoting employee voluntary tax compliance in a regulatory alteration. International Review of Management and Marketing, 16(3), 90–96. https://doi.org/10.32479/irmm.22713
Csatlós, E. (2025). Automation in action: Experience with quick and cost-efficient administrative decisions in Hungary. Balkan Social Science Review, 25, 181–203. https://doi.org/10.46763/BSSR252525181c
Domingos, P. (2024). Evaluating the administration of justice and abuse of process: A critical analysis of the Mariana jurisdiction challenge [2022] and the European system of law for civil and commercial matters for a third state. Access to Justice in Eastern Europe, 7(2), 410–426. https://doi.org/10.33327/AJEE-18-7.2-a000204
Fajrana, N., Saraswati, E., Nurkholis, & Rusydi, M. K. (2025). The role of perceived fairness, trust, and motivation on tax compliance. Asian Economic and Financial Review, 15(5), 766–778. https://doi.org/10.55493/5002.v15i5.5393
Gammie, M. (2024). Policy forum: Some reflections on ethical considerations in tax litigation. Canadian Tax Journal, 72(1), 95–105. https://doi.org/10.32721/ctj.2024.72.1.pf.gammie
Guglyuvatyy, E. (2025). Balancing innovation and integrity: AI in tax administration and taxpayer rights. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12, Article 1818. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-06099-7
Hutchinson, T., & Duncan, N. (2012). Defining and describing what we do: Doctrinal legal research. Deakin Law Review, 17(1), 83–119.
Ibrayev, A., Ibrayeva, N., Mukasheva, A., Zhurunova, M., & Kozhakhmetova, S. (2026). From access to stagnation: Legal and institutional obstacles to agricultural land turnover in Kazakhstan. Access to Justice in Eastern Europe, 9(1), 183–207. https://doi.org/10.33327/AJEE-18-9.1-a000171
Jasinski, M. (2025). Frivolity and vexation in private prosecutions: A line sensibly drawn? The Journal of Criminal Law. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220183251346389
Kangalgil, F., Topsakal, N., & Kuzucu, Ö. (2025). Local dynamic analysis of the COVID-19 mathematical model based on discrete-time predator-prey population model. Turkish Journal of Mathematics.
Kim, H.-S., & Lee, H.-A. (2020). Associations among procedural fairness, tax compliance, and tax re-audits. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 7(7), 187–198. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no7.187
Laprévote, F.-C., & Lin, W. (2022). Between state aid, trade and antitrust: The mixed procedural heritage of the Foreign Subsidies Regulation and the overarching principle of non-discrimination. European State Aid Law Quarterly, (3), 443–452. https://doi.org/10.5771/1435-439X-2022-3-443
Liu, B., Liu, C., Li, W., & Richardson, G. (2026). Domestic geographic disclosure aggregation and corporate tax avoidance: Evidence from China. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Article 107441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2026.107441
Majka, P. (2020). Tax sanctions as institutions determining the effectiveness of collecting tax information: Limits of legal regulation. Studia Iuridica Lublinensia.
Murdiana, E., Rodliyah, N., Natamiharja, R., Fathoni, M. N., & Jha, G. K. (2026). The victim's best interest principle in Islamic law: An examination of the substance of sexual violence in Muslim majority countries in the contemporary era. Metro Islamic Law Review. https://doi.org/10.32332/milrev.v5i1.10654
Niesiob?dzka, M., & Ko?odziej, S. (2017). The fair process effect in taxation: The roles of procedural fairness, outcome favorability and outcome fairness in the acceptance of tax authority decisions. Current Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-017-9762-x
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., ... Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, Article n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Pop?awski, M. (2019). Overview of the recent changes of the Polish tax rules and support for taxpayer. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, 59(72). https://doi.org/10.2478/slgr-2019-0032
Radanova, Y. (2026). Building a compulsory mediation pathway: Bulgaria as a live experiment in dispute system design? Access to Justice in Eastern Europe, 9(2), 35–59. https://doi.org/10.33327/AJEE-18-9.2-a000194
Rethlefsen, M. L., Kirtley, S., Waffenschmidt, S., Ayala, A. P., Moher, D., Page, M. J., & Koffel, J. B. (2021). PRISMA-S: An extension to the PRISMA statement for reporting literature searches in systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 10, Article 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01542-z
Rizqiyanto, N., Rizqi, M., Afsa, F. A. R., & Berrahlia, B. (2025). Tax regulation challenges in the digital economy era: Legal analysis and implications in Indonesia. Trunojoyo Law Review, 7(1), 65–102.
Seidman, J. K., Sinha, R. K., & Stomberg, B. (2025). Tax audits and the policing of corporate taxes: Insights from tax executives. Contemporary Accounting Research. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.13051
Syniehubov, O., Bortnik, O., & Chernenko, O. (2025). European approaches to digital justice in Central and Eastern Europe and the Baltic States, with perspectives for Ukraine. Access to Justice in Eastern Europe, 8(Special issue), 32–73. https://doi.org/10.33327/AJEE-18-8.S-c000162
Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8, Article 45. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-45
van Verseveld, L. (2022). Exchange of information in the field of indirect taxes. Erasmus Law Review, (2), 100–108. https://doi.org/10.5553/ELR.000222
Wang, J., Wei, Y., & Su, X. (2025). Forcible measures for maritime law enforcement by the coast guard. Frontiers in Marine Science, 12, Article 1654808. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2025.1654808
Copyright (c) 2026 Bachtiar Arifin, Diding Rahmat
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International. that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
