윤지현, 후발적 사유에 의한 경정청구가 인정되는 요건에 관한 소고, 세무와 회계연구, 2017.11, pp.229-274.
Yoon, Ji-Hyun, A Thought on the Provisions of the Framework Act for National Taxes in Korea with regard to the "Request for Correction based upon Subsequent Events", Tax and Accounting Research, 2017.11 , pp.229-274.
This article discusses how to interpret the provisions of the "Framework Act for National Taxes" and its enforcement decree on the so-called “request for correction based on subsequent events” (“Request”), which allows a taxpayer to be absolved from an already recognized tax liability thanks to an event that occurred subsequently. After reviewing each provision of the said Act and its enforcement decree that enumerates cases where a taxpayer is allowed to file a Request, this article argues that the Request is basically available under two different fact patterns： one is where the taxpayer and the tax authorities were not correctly aware of the relevant facts at the time the tax liability was established, but the truthful facts were somehow revealed subsequently. It is submitted that, in this category, only when the truth was concealed by government acts or was revealed through a particularly reliable public process (e.g. lawsuit) should the Request be accepted ；and, the other is where the taxpayer and the tax authorities correctly knew the relevant facts when the tax liability was established, but the relevant facts were somehow changed subsequently. This is indeed the area where the Supreme Court of Korea has shown a strongly discernible tendency to expand the usage of the Request in order to relieve taxpayers from their already recognized tax liabilities. It is argued that, as long as this tendency is accepted as a valid court precedence, the Request should be avaliable where it could be said the economic benefit recognized as income has eventually disappeared. In this sense, it appears that taxpayers may rely on the Request in this second category to an extent greater than in the first one, taking advantage of the catch-all clause included in the said Act. However, there still seems to be a room for controversy over to what extent such subsequent events may affect the already recognized tax liabilities, and the author believes that such discussions must ensue in terms of substantive tax law if we seek to land on a correct interpretation on the Request of the second category in terms of tax procedure.
#후발적 경정청구#판결#부과처분#계약 해제#납세의무의 성립 확정#request for correction based on subsequent events#recognition of tax liabilities#tax assessment#nullification of contract
윤지현, 후발적 사유에 의한 경정청구가 인정되는 요건에 관한 소고, 세무와 회계연구, 2017.11, pp.229-274.
Yoon, Ji-Hyun, A Thought on the Provisions of the Framework Act for National Taxes in Korea with regard to the "Request for Correction based upon Subsequent Events", Tax and Accounting Research, 2017.11 , pp.229-274.
This article discusses how to interpret the provisions of the "Framework Act for National Taxes" and its enforcement decree on the so-called “request for correction based on subsequent events” (“Request”), which allows a taxpayer to be absolved from an already recognized tax liability thanks to an event that occurred subsequently. After reviewing each provision of the said Act and its enforcement decree that enumerates cases where a taxpayer is allowed to file a Request, this article argues that the Request is basically available under two different fact patterns： one is where the taxpayer and the tax authorities were not correctly aware of the relevant facts at the time the tax liability was established, but the truthful facts were somehow revealed subsequently. It is submitted that, in this category, only when the truth was concealed by government acts or was revealed through a particularly reliable public process (e.g. lawsuit) should the Request be accepted ；and, the other is where the taxpayer and the tax authorities correctly knew the relevant facts when the tax liability was established, but the relevant facts were somehow changed subsequently. This is indeed the area where the Supreme Court of Korea has shown a strongly discernible tendency to expand the usage of the Request in order to relieve taxpayers from their already recognized tax liabilities. It is argued that, as long as this tendency is accepted as a valid court precedence, the Request should be avaliable where it could be said the economic benefit recognized as income has eventually disappeared. In this sense, it appears that taxpayers may rely on the Request in this second category to an extent greater than in the first one, taking advantage of the catch-all clause included in the said Act. However, there still seems to be a room for controversy over to what extent such subsequent events may affect the already recognized tax liabilities, and the author believes that such discussions must ensue in terms of substantive tax law if we seek to land on a correct interpretation on the Request of the second category in terms of tax procedure.