납세자의 금반언과 부과제척기간

This Article is to review the taxpayer’s duty of consistency doctrine established in the U.S. courts, thereby proposing to apply the doctrine in Korean tax law jurisprudence. To sum-up the review is as follow: Taxpayer’s duty of consistency(or quasi-estoppel) has been firmly established in the U.S. through several decades of intensive controversy since the Stearns case of U.S. Supreme Court in 1934.  Generally there are three elements of the doctrine: (1) The taxpayer made a representation of fact or reported an item for tax purposes in one tax year; (2) the tax authority acquiesced in or relied on that fact for that year; and (3) the taxpayer desires to change the representation, previously made, in a later tax year after the first year has been closed by the statutes of limitation. The doctrine in the U.S. tax law jurisprudence is mainly based upon some insights: it may serve for: (1) the self-reporting system which is the cornerstone of our modern fiscal system; (2) the finality and repose inherent in statutes of limitation; and also (3) the determination of correct tax liability. In Japan, the doctrine was also applied in an appellant court case and it’s hard to see any criticism to the court decision. In Korea, the tax law explicitly stipulates the good faith obligation(including estoppel) at both sides of taxpayers and tax authority. Courts, however, have historically applied the estoppel against the former only a couple of cases while applying it against the tax authority in a great deal of cases. Such asymmetry is generally justified by virtue of the administrative norm for the protection of public good-faith as well as the tax authority’s superior power over taxpayers. Given such situation, court cases applying the estoppel against taxpayers reflects the courts’ sensibility of justice and equity at the expense of the principle of correct tax liability. As a result, courts’ application of estoppel against taxpayers is deemed as a penalty irrespective of the ability to pay under the substantive tax laws. In that respect, the courts’ view on the estoppel would be plausible. However, the application of the statutory good faith obligation to the situation of the duty of consistency would not only meet the goal of justice and equity, but also serve the principle of correct tax liability. Hence, in a situation under which the elements are met, the consistency doctrine is normatively stronger than the estoppel cases to which courts has applied. In addition, the duty of consistency would contribute the effectiveness of the statutes of limitation as well as the self-reporting system. On the other hand, it’s hard to seek for any reason to discard the doctrine.