Alternative dispute resolution methods have an increasing trend both for private and public law branches in our country, as it is all around the world.However, alternative dispute resolution methods are not absolute alternatives or substitutes for jurisdiction function. First of all, the characteristics of the decisions reached and solution paths of those two options differ from each other. Moreover the procedures are quite different from each other. Therefore, where the solution arrived with the resolution might be final; nevertheless it is not possible to reach to qualifications, like final judgment, specific to jurisdictional decision. One of the peaceful settlement methods on administrative level for tax disputes is alternative solution path reconciliation. Yet, both tax administration and taxpayer reach a solution inter se without applying to a judicial authority; in other words, without applying to any authority that would decide who is right or faulty. Therefore laying all the privileges specific to judicial decision on this resolution, which doesn’t have a judicial decision nature, and also attribution of various meanings by judicial bodies to the intentions presented as a result of this resolution are inaccurate.The motive to write this article is driven from, the very subject of this article, Council of State jurisdiction that has attributed dijudication qualities to a reconciliation consequence which is against qualifications of alternative dispute resolution methods. Within this scope, our paper will review whether as a result of a tax audit reconciliation on some taxes but not reconciling on some other taxes and resorting to the jurisdiction would have the nature of acknowledgment or not within the frame of the said Council of State jurisdiction. Answer to the question will be sought within the light of the right to legal remedies and the characteristic differences between judicial functions and alternative dispute resolution methods.