국세기본법 제45조의2 제1항 각 호 외의 부분 단서에 관한 해석상의 쟁점

Article 45-2 (1) with the exception of its subparagraph of General Tax Act of Korea(hereinafter referred to as the ‘regulation in question’) is a regulation on claims for correction, but raise various interpretive questions regarding objection to the disposition. Some of them have been settled by the court and others are still waiting for the settlement. The above issues are raised because, like Article 22-3 of General Tax Act, the target regulations reflect the coexistence theory, but there is insufficient awareness of such characteristics. In this article, issues that have been raised or may be raised in relation to the interpretation of the regulation in question were divided into three categories and reviewed. The author’s conclusion is as follows: Regarding the first issue, regarding the interpretation impact of the regulation in question on the original tax report and the objection period on the increased revisionary tax administrative disposition, the objection period does not apply to the original tax report, and objection period of the increased revisionary tax administrative disposition does not extend to five years. If the legislative process is reviewed, it can be concluded relatively clearly compared to the remaining issues, but legislatively, it is necessary to refine the text of the regulation in question more clearly. The second issue is whether the objection period has passed in the case of an increased revisionary tax administrative disposition, and if the period for applying for the claims for the original tax report remains, the illegal elements in the increased revisionary tax administrative disposition can be cited in the claims for the original tax report. Considering that the regulation in question is a clause reflecting the coexistence theory, the original tax report and the increased revisionary tax administrative disposition are separated as the subject of dispute and the purpose of limiting the period of objection is to ensure the legal stability, etc., this issue shall be interpreted negatively. Also this conclusion is not contrary to the theory of absorption or the view of totalitarianism. The third issue is whether the regulation in question can be applied to reports that are obligated to report in the imposition tax method. The target regulation is based on a claim for correction, not a claim for a decision, and a report by the obligation to report can be the object of claim for a decision not the object of claim for a correction. Therefore, I think the third issue as negative.