소득금액변동통지에 대한 납세자구제수단의 확대를 위한 법적 고찰

Normally, when a difference occurs between the income amount for each fiscal year under the Corporate Tax Act and the net income for the period under corporate accounting due to reasons such as a corporation omitting sales or accounting for processing expenses, the tax authority corrects the difference and simultaneously makes an income disposition specifying the attributor for the difference, and notifies the corporation or the attributor of the difference in the form of a notice of change in the amount of income. And when a notice of change in the amount of income is delivered, the corporation in question is liable for withholding tax and various surtaxes in addition to the corporate tax on the amount of profit omitted, and the person attributing the income may be subject to additional reporting and payment obligations and surtax penalties. Therefore, the legal obligations arising from the notice of change in the amount of income and the effect of sanctions for non-performance thereof can be said to be quite significant. Despite being called a “notification,” the notice of change in the amount of income can have a significant impact on the legal status of taxpayers according to tax laws, and thus, its legal nature and taxpayer relief measures have been the subject of considerable controversy. In relation to this, the Supreme Court previously held that the notice of change in the amount of income was merely a procedural requirement for income tax and was not an administrative disposition for the corporation in question. However, the Supreme Court changed its opinion in the en banc decision of 2002du1878 dated April 20, 2006, and ruled that it was an administrative disposition, and has maintained this position to this day. However, the Supreme Court's position is limited to cases where a corporation disputes a notice of change in the amount of income, and in other cases, it shows an inconsistent attitude on whether direct relief procedures can be taken against the notice of change in the amount of income. In conclusion, it is clear that when a notice of change in the amount of income is delivered, it has legal effect according to tax law and affects the legal status of the taxpayer. Therefore, it is necessary to acknowledge the administrative disposition and the substance of the taxation disposition and allow all taxpayer relief procedures. Case law denies the administrative disposition nature of the notice of change in the amount of income for income owners, citing the existence of other remedies such as lawsuits to cancel income tax assessments or requests for correction, unlike the notice of change in the amount of income for corporations. However, this is unfair in that it demands supplementation without explicit provisions and hinders the prompt resolution of disputes. In addition, case law does not allow a pre-taxation review based on the principle of strict interpretation on the grounds that a notice of change in the amount of income without a tax investigation is not a tax disposition, but it is difficult to accept because it is a lax interpretation that creates a gap in taxpayer protection. Therefore, the inconsistent case law regarding the appeal procedure for a notice of change in the amount of income needs to be changed from the perspective of taxpayer relief, and the gaps in the taxpayer relief system need to be institutionally improved by supplementing the legislative shortcomings through legal amendments.