납세자권리보호제도의 실효성 확보 방안 연구

Abstract

It has been many years since the taxpayer rights protection system was introduced and implemented. Korea’s taxpayer rights protection system seems to be a strong system for protecting taxpayer rights at first glance due to its diverse aspects and wide legal scope, but in fact, the way current system works is a question of whether the form and substance are equal. This study consisted of examining the current status and operation of the taxpayer rights protection system, comparing it with other country systems, analyzing problems arising in the process of implementing the system, and presenting improvement resolutions. The problem with Korea’s taxpayer rights protection system is that it has become a decorative mechanism for taxpayers’ protection. The duties and authority of National Tax Advocate guaranteed by law seem to be wide and strong, but in reality, there is little space for National Tax Advo- cate to be directly involved and the role is limited, making the system nominal. Second, the Officials in charge of protecting taxpayers and the taxpayer protection committee are subordinate to the head of the tax office. Most of the decisions related to taxpayer protection are granted to the head of the tax office, resulting in Officials in charge of protecting taxpayers and the taxpayer protection committee having only the status of a procedural operator subordinate to the head of the tax office. Third, the taxpayer rights protection system has various procedures, and the approval or decision makers of various systems are different, and the deadline and process are also different. Due to the complexity of these systems, it is difficult for taxpayers to use the system properly, while the head of the tax office, who has the authority to form and make decisions of the taxpayer protection committee, is mainly concerned about controlling the independence, procedural, and substantive rationality. Fourth, under the Korean system, National Tax Advocate’s involvement in tax investigation procedures is institutionalized, but due to restrictions on the scope of their involvement, it is difficult to say that National Tax Advocates are playing a role in the tax investigation procedures where taxpayer rights are most frequently violated. In order to prevent the Korean taxpayer protection system from becoming a nominal system with insufficient actual authority compared to its appear- ance, first of all, the work of Officials in charge of protecting taxpayers must be carried out independently from the head of the tax office. To this end, each tax office’s Officials in charge of protecting taxpayers should also maintain an open position, have the personnel rights of the National Tax Advocate, and allow the National Tax Advocate to intervene in requesting rights protection or handling complaints. Second, taxpayer protection committee should be reorganized into an organi- zation with final decision-making authority, not a preliminary review institution. The right to organize and hold the taxpayer protection committee should also be granted to the National Tax Advocate, not the head of the tax office. Third, it is also reasonable to consider simplifying the method of the taxpayer rights protection system and giving primary judgment authority to the National Tax Advocate(or Officials in charge of protecting taxpayers) by focusing on the nature of the ombudsman. Fourth, the taxpayer protection (in charge) officer should participate in the process of selecting a person subject to tax audit. For fairness in selecting subjects for investigation, it is necessary for the National Tax Advocate(or Officials in charge of protecting taxpayers) who has independence from the head of the National Tax Service to be involved in the procedure. Finally, if a taxpayer is selected as a subject of a tax audit and is investigated, economic and time costs are consumed.