On some assumptions in the dogmatic study of tax law

In the paper it is observed that methodology of traditional legal dogmatics omits the philosophical problem known as the “is−ought problem” or “Hume’s guillotine” according to which it is not logically possible to derive normative statements from descriptive statements and vice versa. Dogmatic arguments based on interpretation of a fragment of the system of law nevertheless contain comments and recommendations on empirical reality which that fragment of law regulates. It is shown in the paper that in doing so, their authors include enthymemes in their arguments, which are syllogisms with hidden premises. Since law belongs to the wider category of humanities, these enthymemes are of rhetorical kind, and this calls for increased caution in order to avoid theoretical fallacies which may result in misguided changes in the system of law.