Keywords:
tax fairness
legal certainty
tax efficiency
digital economy
economic globalization
environmental sustainability

  • Abstract

    This study presents a systematic review of tax principles, exploring their historical evolution and their role in modern taxation. It examines the classic principles established by Adam Smith—equity, certainty, convenience, and efficiency—while assessing their reinterpretation in response to globalization, digital transformation, and environmental sustainability. The analysis considers how contemporary tax systems integrate these principles to address challenges such as tax evasion, base erosion, and inequality in tax burden distribution. The research follows a rigorous methodology, employing a literature review through academic databases such as Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. The study applies the PRISMA model for selecting and analyzing 64 relevant publications from 2019 to 2024. This systematic approach ensures a comprehensive assessment of how tax principles have evolved and their practical implications in diverse economic contexts. Findings indicate that traditional principles remain foundational but require adaptation to meet current economic and social demands. Regulatory rigidity often conflicts with the necessity for flexibility, creating tensions in the implementation of effective tax policies. Governments face the challenge of designing tax systems that maintain fairness while accommodating technological advancements and cross-border economic activities. Additionally, the study highlights the increasing relevance of sustainability in tax policy, emphasizing the potential of fiscal measures to promote environmental responsibility and long-term economic stability. These insights contribute to the development of fairer and more efficient tax regulations. The study underscores the importance of future research focused on the impact of digitalization and globalization on tax administration, with particular attention to innovative strategies for improving compliance and reducing economic disparities worldwide.

  • References

    1. Agrawal, D. R., & Fox, W. F. (2021). Taxing goods and services in a digital era. National Tax Journal, 74(1), 257–301. https://doi.org/10.1086/712913
    2. Agrawal, S., & Holani, U. (2022). A hermeneutical study of Manusmriti and Adam Smith’s canons of taxation. VISION: Journal of Indian Taxation, 9(2), 84–91. https://doi.org/10.17492/jpi.vision.v9i2.922206
    3. Alam, T. (2019). Canon of taxation of Adam Smith, philosophical revelation and a short comparative discussion in the context of modern taxation structures. SSRN Electronic Journal, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3783037
    4. Aldeia, S. C. (2021). Application of the constitutional principle of generality in Spanish companies’ taxation: A compared study to Portugal. International Journal of Law and Management, 63(6), 586–598. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLMA-01-2021-0008
    5. Alstadsæter, A., Johannesen, N., Le Guern Herry, S., & Zucman, G. (2022). Tax evasion and tax avoidance. Journal of Public Economics, 206, 104587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2021.104587
    6. Ardanaz, M., Cavallo, E., Izquierdo, A., & Puig, J. (2021). Growth-friendly fiscal rules? Safeguarding public investment from budget cuts through fiscal rule design. Journal of International Money and Finance, 111, 102319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jimonfin.2020.102319
    7. Bachas, P., Jensen, A., & Gadenne, L. (2024). Tax equity in low- and middle-income countries. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 38(1), 55–80. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.38.1.55
    8. Balasoiu, N., Chifu, I., & Oancea, M. (2023). Impact of direct taxation on economic growth: Empirical evidence based on panel data regression analysis at the level of EU countries. Sustainability, 15(9), 7146. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097146
    9. Beshi, S., & Susuri, D. (2023). Proportionality principle in the CJEU judgments on tax cases. Lex Portus, 9(4), 28-39. https://doi.org/10.26886/2524-101X.9.4.2023.3
    10. Blanco, A. (2022). An ideological critique of the OECD’s BEPS Action Plan. Griffith Law Review, 31(3), 333–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2022.2096966
    11. Cai, Y.-J., Choi, T.-M., Feng, L., & Li, Y. (2022). Producer’s choice of design-for-environment under environmental taxation. European Journal of Operational Research, 297(2), 532–544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2021.04.048
    12. Calderón, J. M., & Seara, A. Q. (2022). The EU Cooperative Compliance Programme for large multinational enterprises: A promising mechanism for tax certainty in the uncertain tax world following the OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Initiative? Bulletin for International Taxation, 76(12), 578-588. https://doi.org/10.59403/1qrx0k1
    13. Cannas, F. (2020). Taxpayers’ right of defence in the international context: The case of exchange of tax information and a proposal for the “English” Wednesbury doctrine as the new OECD (BEPS) standard. World Tax Journal, 12(2). https://doi.org/10.59403/14e5h3f
    14. Cantoni, D., Mohr, C., & Weigand, M. (2024). The rise of fiscal capacity: Administration and state consolidation in the Holy Roman Empire. Econometrica, 92(5), 1439–1472. https://doi.org/10.3982/ECTA20612
    15. Carbonell-Nicolau, O., & Llavador, H. (2021). Inequality, bipolarization, and tax progressivity. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 13(4), 492–513. https://doi.org/10.1257/mic.20190111
    16. Caselli, F., & Reynaud, J. (2019). Do fiscal rules cause better fiscal balances? A new instrumental variable strategy. IMF Working Papers, 19(49), 1. https://doi.org/10.5089/9781498300865.001
    17. Castañeda, V. M. (2021). Tax equity and its association with fiscal morale. International Public Management Journal, 24(5), 710–735. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2019.1671926
    18. Cepeda, I., & Fraile Balbín, P. (2022). Fiscal pessimism in historical perspective: Tocqueville’s cross revisited. Revista de Historia Económica / Journal of Iberian and Latin American Economic History, 40(2), 349–369. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0212610921000094
    19. Cipollini, C. (2020). Special tax zones and proportionality: A new parameter for the necessity test. EC Tax Review, 29(1), 22–32. https://doi.org/10.54648/ECTA2020003
    20. Coruhlu, Y. E., Uzun, B., & Yildiz, O. (2020). Zoning plan-based legal confiscation without expropriation in Turkey in light of ECHR decisions. Land Use Policy, 95, 104598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104598
    21. Cowen, N. (2022). Neoliberal social justice and taxation. Social Philosophy and Policy, 39(1), 68–89. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265052523000055
    22. Diab, M. Y., Khalifa, M. A., Rady, T. A., & Abo Laban, A. M. (2022). Proposed framework for the environmental tax system to reduce environmental pollution and contribute to sustainable development (Applied study on the industrial sector). Journal of Environmental Science, 51(2), 41–88. https://doi.org/10.21608/jes.2022.110369.1135
    23. Durceylan, E. (2019). Tax efficiency in a model of endogenous markups. SERIEs, 10(3–4), 401–418. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13209-019-00209-w
    24. Easton, F. (2024). Enlightenment and exchange. Eighteenth-Century Fiction, 36(2), 309–314. https://doi.org/10.3138/ecf.36.2.309
    25. Estallo, M. A. S. (2020). Notas sobre el arrendamiento de la alcabala a través de los Cuadernos de 1462 y 1484. Anuario de Estudios Medievales, 22(1), 803-820. https://doi.org/10.3989/aem.1992.v22.1090
    26. Ezzamel, M. (2002). Accounting working for the state: Tax assessment and collection during the New Kingdom, ancient Egypt. Accounting and Business Research, 32(1), 17–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/00014788.2002.9728952
    27. Farelo, M. (2022). When tears and prayers are not enough: Chronology and arguments about the fiscal contribution of the clergy in favour of the Portuguese monarchy (14th-15th centuries). Studia Historica. Historia Medieval, 40(2), 117–140. https://doi.org/10.14201/shhme2022402117140
    28. Flick, U. (2015). El diseño de investigación cualitativa (T. del Amo & C. Blanco, Trads.). Morata.
    29. Fox, P. (2021). Naturalizing the contributory. Synthese, 199(3–4), 6275–6298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-021-03069-9
    30. Gerber, C., Klemm, A., Liu, L., & Mylonas, V. (2020). Income tax progressivity: Trends and implications. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 82(2), 365–386. https://doi.org/10.1111/obes.12331
    31. Gough, D., & Richardson, M. (2024). Systematic reviews. Em P. Brough, Advanced research methods for applied psychology (2a ed., pp. 71–86). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003362715-8
    32. Greggi, M. (2020). Rise and decline of the Westphalian principle in taxation: The web tax case. EC Tax Review, 29(1), 6–21. https://doi.org/10.54648/ECTA2020002
    33. Guillaud, E., Olckers, M., & Zemmour, M. (2020). Four levers of redistribution: The impact of tax and transfer systems on inequality reduction. Review of Income and Wealth, 66(2), 444–466. https://doi.org/10.1111/roiw.12408
    34. Guzowski, P. (2021). Military revolution and state capacity of Jagiellonian states at the turn of the Middle Ages in European context. Studia Slavica et Balcanica Petropolitana, 2(30), 19–36. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu19.2021.202
    35. Hernándo, M. D. (2020). La política fiscal del común de pecheros de Soria en el siglo XV y primeras décadas del XVI. Anuario de Estudios Medievales, 22(1), 821-852. https://doi.org/10.3989/aem.1992.v22.1091
    36. Irandoust, M. (2024). Informality and taxation: Evidence from seven Latin American countries. Revista Hacienda Pública Española, 248(1), 91–114. https://doi.org/10.7866/HPE-RPE.24.1.5
    37. Jha, P., & Gozgor, G. (2019). Globalization and taxation: Theory and evidence. European Journal of Political Economy, 59, 296–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2019.04.001
    38. Kallet, L. (2004). Epigraphic geography: The tribute quota fragments assigned to 421/0–415/4 B.C. Hesperia, 73(4), 465–496. https://doi.org/10.2972/hesp.2004.73.4.465
    39. Kasoko, E. N. (2022). International taxation of offshore indirect transfers of mineral assets: Legal analysis considering the principle of fairness and sustainable development. Intertax, 50(2), 126–137. https://doi.org/10.54648/TAXI2022013
    40. Kumar, A. (445d. C.). State tax policy from oldest civilisation to Kautilya. International Journal of Science & Engineering Development Research, 8(2), 443-445. https://www.ijrti.org/viewpaperforall?paper=IJRTI2302073
    41. Lasiński-Sulecki, K. (2024). Legal certainty in tax and customs judgments of the Court of Justice. EC Tax Review, 33(2), 68–76. https://doi.org/10.54648/ECTA2024008
    42. Lierse, H. (2022). Globalization and the societal consensus of wealth tax cuts. Journal of European Public Policy, 29(5), 748–766. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2021.1992487
    43. Lyutova, O. I. (2024). Digital transformation of tax law principles. Journal of Digital Technologies and Law, 2(1), 163–180. https://doi.org/10.21202/jdtl.2024.9
    44. Montes, G. C., Bastos, J. C. A., & De Oliveira, A. J. (2019). Fiscal transparency, government effectiveness and government spending efficiency: Some international evidence based on panel data approach. Economic Modelling, 79, 211–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2018.10.013
    45. Morgan, M., & Carvalho Junior, P. (2021). Taxing wealth: General principles, international perspectives and lessons for Brazil. Brazilian Journal of Political Economy, 41(1), 44–64. https://doi.org/10.1590/0101-31572021-3131
    46. Mozumi, S. (2022). Tax expenditures and the Tax Reform Act of 1969 in the United States. Social Science History, 46(1), 93–118. https://doi.org/10.1017/ssh.2021.41
    47. Murnidayanti, S. A., & Putranti, T. M. (2023). The effectiveness of digitizing tax administration to reduce the compliance cost of taxpayers of micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs). Jurnal Public Policy, 9(2), 91. https://doi.org/10.35308/jpp.v9i2.6561
    48. Nacar, B., & Karabacak, Y. (2023). Does globalization affect taxation policies? Evidence from Turkey. Applied Economics Letters, 30(12), 1627–1630. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2022.2074353
    49. Nepochtenko, O., Ptashnyk, S., & Nagornaya, J. (2020). Fairness of taxation in modern economic theory. Collected Works of Uman National University of Horticulture, 2(97), 7–21. https://doi.org/10.31395/2415-8240-2020-97-2-7-21
    50. Oguttu, A. W. (2022). The parallel rise of multinational enterprises and the historical development of international tax rules – Introspection for the new rules to tax the digital economy. Bulletin for International Taxation, 76(10). https://doi.org/10.59403/2sa32z9
    51. Pandey, K., Yadav, S. S., & Sharma, S. (2024). Investigating the international corporate tax revenue efficiency under the digital economy: Multiple case study of MNEs operating in India. Journal of Asia Business Studies, 18(4), 1043–1069. https://doi.org/10.1108/JABS-04-2023-0158
    52. Petrașcu, D., Păcurariu, I., Ciocanea, B. C., & Pițu, C. I. (2023). Tax evasion between tax optimization at the border of legality, tax burden and voluntary compliance. Journal of Legal Studies, 32(46), 163–180. https://doi.org/10.2478/jles-2023-0019
    53. Piketty, T., Saez, E., & Zucman, G. (2023). Rethinking capital and wealth taxation. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 39(3), 575–591. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grad026
    54. Ponomareva, K. (2022). Tax challenges arising from the digitalisation of the economy: The development of the OECD project and possible implementation in Russia. BRICS Law Journal, 9(4), 41–63. https://doi.org/10.21684/2412-2343-2022-9-4-41-63
    55. Post, D. R., & Cipollini, C. (2022). Fundamental elements of a blockchain-based tax system – When to use blockchain for tax? World Tax Journal, 14(4). https://doi.org/10.59403/2j075wb
    56. Quinones, N. (2023). Policy note: Beyond the 2-pillar solution: A case for a global income tax and the creation of the International Tax Organization. Intertax, 51(4), 324–334. https://doi.org/10.54648/TAXI2023027
    57. Radvan, M. (2023). “Laissez-faire” principle in tax law during the crises. Studia Iuridica Lublinensia, 32(2), 225–247. https://doi.org/10.17951/sil.2023.32.2.225-247
    58. Ramos, J. C. (2020). Fiscalidad real y renta feudal. La martiniega, la fonsadera y el yantar a mediados del siglo XIV en la Castilla de las merindades. Anuario de Estudios Medievales, 22(1), 767. https://doi.org/10.3989/aem.1992.v22.1088
    59. Rasji, & Trawocoadji, F. D. (2023). Settlement of tax disputes through the application of the principle of equity. JILPR Journal Indonesia Law and Policy Review, 5(1), 254–264. https://doi.org/10.56371/jirpl.v5i1.209
    60. Reed, H. (2020). The distributional impact of tax and social security reforms in the UK from 2010 to 2017. Social Policy and Society, 19(3), 470–486. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474746420000093
    61. Repetti, J. R. (2019). The appropriate roles for equity and efficiency in a progressive income tax. SSRN Electronic Journal, 522-596. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3470360
    62. Rotberg, S., & Steinberg, J. B. (2024). Tax evasion and capital taxation. Journal of Political Economy, 132(7), 2488–2529. https://doi.org/10.1086/729066
    63. Saez, E., & Zucman, G. (2019). Progressive wealth taxation. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 2019(2), 437–533. https://doi.org/10.1353/eca.2019.0017
    64. Savoia, A., & Sen, K. (2023). The origins of fiscal states in developing economies: History, politics and institutions. Journal of Institutional Economics, 19(3), 303–313. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744137423000024
    65. Setiarini, S. I. (2022). The effect of modern tax administration system, taxpayer satisfaction, enforcement of tax sanctions and distributive justice on taxpayer compliance (Study on taxpayers of personal persons registered at the Holy Tax Service Office). Economic: Journal Economic and Business, 1(1), 27–33. https://doi.org/10.56495/ejeb.v1i1.241
    66. Speck, S. (1999). Energy and carbon taxes and their distributional implications. Energy Policy, 27(11), 659–667. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(99)00059-2
    67. Štreimikienė, D., Samusevych, Y., Bilan, Y., Vysochyna, A., & Sergi, B. S. (2022). Multiplexing efficiency of environmental taxes in ensuring environmental, energy, and economic security. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(5), 7917–7935. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-16239-6
    68. Tagem, A. M. E., & Morrissey, O. (2023). Institutions and tax capacity in sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of Institutional Economics, 19(3), 332–347. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744137422000145
    69. Thao, L. T., & Trien, N. T. (2022). Equity in tax law: Vietnam case study. Administrative and Environmental Law Review, 3(2), 97–106. https://doi.org/10.25041/aelr.v3i2.2662
    70. Vlugt, S. V. D. (2023). The principle of legality of taxation as a general principle of EU law: National and supranational differences of interpretation and potential difficulties. EC Tax Review, 32(5), 214–228. https://doi.org/10.54648/ECTA2023027
    71. Wang, W. (2022). Tax equity, green innovation and corporate sustainable development. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 10, 1062179. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.1062179
    72. Yaroshovets, T. (2023). Taxation and public administration: Experience of Ancient Greece. Public Management and Digital Practices, 2(2), 86-94. https://doi.org/10.31673/2786-7412.2023.025899
    73. Yusuff, H. (2023). Systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Global Medicine, 3(S1), e133. https://doi.org/10.51496/jogm.v3.S1.133
    74. Zhang, Z., Xu, H., & Qiao, Z. (2024). Has the digital economy enhanced the income distribution effect among industries? Evidence from China. Sustainability, 16(20), 8969. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16208969
    75. Zhil’Tsova, Y. V., & Ivanova, D. V. (2022). The tax equity concept and its translation into action. International Accounting, 25(6), 679–700. https://doi.org/10.24891/ia.25.6.679
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Copyright (c) 2025 The Authors

How to cite

Marron, F. J. T., Mamani, J. A. C., Gil, C. A. R., & Rosario, A. R. (2025). Analysis of taxation principles: A systematic review. Multidisciplinary Reviews, 8(10), 2025320. https://doi.org/10.31893/multirev.2025320
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC
  • Article viewed - 159
  • PDF downloaded - 40