지방세법상 미납세반출시 납세의무 성립과 확정시기에 관한 연구:대법원 2023. 7. 13. 선고 2020두52375 판결에 대한 평석

Consumption Tax Laws, including tobacco consumption tax, stipulate that tax collection is exempt if certain requirements are met. However, there is no clear discussion with regards to the legal characteristics of the carrying out without paying tax regulations. The Supreme Court only expresses it as a temporary tax suspension, and there is no intensive discussion among domestic scholars. However, the Supreme Court recently expressed the timing of the establishment of tobacco consumption tax obligation of the tobaccos carried-out without paying taxes and decided that the tax obligation is established when the tobaccos are carried-out again from the place of bringing-in, not when the tobaccos are carried-out without paying taxes. The Supreme Court decision can be seen as an important ruling because depending on the legal characteristics, when the carrying out without paying tax occurs, the time of establishment and the time of confirmation of the tax obligations can be different, which can have different legal effects in terms of changes in the tax rates or statute of limitations. However, it is difficult to agree with the conclusion of the Supreme Court decision. In this paper, it preliminary distinguished that whether the carrying out without paying tax scheme is a characteristic that changes the timing of tax obligation establishment, is a postponement of collection or has a similar characteristic, is a characteristic that delays timing of tax obligation confirmation while the timing of tax obligation establishment remains same. Then individual theories are reviewed on what problems occur in the interpretation of the scheme. As a result, it is confirmed that even if carrying out without paying tax is applied, the fact that tax obligation is established at the time of first carrying out remains same and that there is no problem in the interpretation of relevant regulations only when it is interpreted that the confirmation timing of the tax obligation is deferred. Therefore, it is confirmed that contrary to the conclusion of the recent Supreme Court decision, no conclusion can be reached that the time of establishment of tax liability is delayed.