مطالب

Nearly four decades after Iranian-Egyptian diplomatic relations were severed, the two countries are yet to restore them. This is a result of the predominance of certain negative emotional attachments embedded in Iranian and Egyptian identities, which have clouded their respective attitudes toward one another. Mired in resentment against Arabism, the national component of the Iranian state identity catalyzes a disinclination to resolve problems with Egypt; in addition, Iran’s religious component carries resentment against Egypt as a state against Shia identification. The anti-western dimension of the Iranian state identity strengthens Iran’s negative emotional attachment to Egypt as a country allied with the United States and recently reconciling with Israel. On the Egyptian side, the Arab nationalism as the defining feature of the Egyptian state identity dictates estrangement from Iran and reluctance to engage with that. These negative emotional predispositions shape Iran and Egypt’s understanding of one another and, in the absence of pressing material interests, explain the continuous failure of the two countries to rebuild their relations. 

One of the most important economic topics in every country is considering tax issues as a way of increasing the government's income through attracting public confidence by observing the principles of proceeding in the tax system of the country which might likely cause a national production boom, increase economic growth rate, reduce unemployment and the fair distribution of wealth. In this regard, since the majority of taxpayers in a country pay taxes and at the same time their rights might be threatened, it is therefore necessary to establish courts and tribunals for settlement of rights and resolving hostility, and because of the close connection of individuals with the issue of tax, they may refer to these authorities more than others. Accordingly, references must be made in accordance with a fair proceeding in order to best determine the rights of the modalities, which will not be achieved except through the adoption of fair trial principles that are endorsed and supported by international legal institutions and are accepted as the principles for the implementation of fair results in the global prosecution system. Today, there are several systems of tax proceedings in different countries, each of which has weaknesses and strengths in terms of affinity and fairness of fair proceeding principles. In this paper, by examining the tax jurisdiction of Iran, the United States, Britain, Germany and France, as well as the patterns of exploitation of each of these systems and comparing the tax systems of these countries with the accepted principles of fair proceeding, the degree of proximity or the distortion of the above tax systems into the principle of the implementation of justice, which should be the ultimate goal for lawmakers, will be studied.