초록 · 키워드 목차 오류제보하기 This article mainly deals with ‘scope of review" and ‘limit of res judicata"(or binding force) of revocation judgement, especially focusing on what degree a revocation judgement bars tax authorities from issuing another notice of deficiency. And This thesis questions whether this outcome is fair comparing that taxpayers" any further act may be blocked if their initial request is dismissed and finalized. If it doesn"t seem to be just, we need to suggest alternatives to alleviate this disparity. Hereinafter, this article introduce 4 model cases to help understanding of concept of ‘scope of review" and ‘limit of res judicata" in tax litigation. One tax agency levies income tax(as business income) on the money that A received from B(basic case). The agency changes dispositive grounds ① as interest income (because the income can not meet the requirements of business income):alternative legal grounds, ② as income received from C (not B):alternative factual basis, ③ as calculation by wrongful acts(although the money is included in A"s previous tax return, A reduced unreasonably income tax burden by renting his real estate to B who is related person at unusually low price:other facts derived from basic factual grounds), ④ as evasion of unrelated income (apart from basic facts). The model case ①, ②, ③ are in the same category of the identity of basic facts. According to current precedents and majority views, Changing dispositive grounds is allowed from case ① to case ④, which means that the scope of review is much extended. However, the limit of binding force (or res judicata) is so narrowly set up that the agency"s second disposition is not constrained from case ① to case ④ which is not the exact same grounds as the prior one. On the other hand, taxpayers" defeat in first lawsuit based on a specific argument means that the notice of tax payment is recognized as legitimate conclusively, even if the taxpayer finds out the nullity of the disposition belatedly. The disparity seems to be serious. There could be two alternatives to remedy taxpayers" disadvantages due to the limit of binding force of revocation judgement. First idea is that tax authorities are allowed to change dispositive grounds within the identity of basic facts and the objective extent of res juticata is set up at the same category. This opinion has strong points in that ‘scope of review" corresponds with ‘limit of res juticata" and both interests of tax payers and tax agencies are guaranteed harmoniously. However, this idea need to change judicial precedents of the supreme court on limit of res juticata drastically and face tricky problem on what degree the trial court is obliged to render conclusive judgment. Additionally, current case law admit ‘the special statute of limitation"{based on Framework Act On National Taxes Article 26-2 (2)} in the case ①. So the change of precedents or legislative move that the special statute of limitation can be applicable only if the notice of tax payment is revoked for illegality of administrative procedures need to be taken. Even before the fundamental improvement on ‘limit of res juticata’, minimum alteration that allow tax authorities change dispositive grounds within the identity of basic facts could be considered preferentially. According to this opinion, tax authorities are expected to aim at winning a lawsuit by changing dispositive grounds advertently in the initial lawsuit. If they fail to do, they are likely to bear the disadvantage of period of exclusion from imposition. Also, as tax authorities are not allowed to change dispositive grounds to evasion of unrelated income (apart from basic facts), they must issue another notice of deficiency, which is also subject to period of exclusion from imposition. This opinion could be more practical solution because it only requires to change judicial precedents of the supreme court on ‘the special statute of limitation" without changing judical precedents on limit of res juticata or facing difficult problem on the obligation of conclusive judgment. #조세소송의 소송물 #처분사유의 추가변경 #차단효 #기속력 #기판력 #탈루소득 #기본적 사실관계 동일성 #특례제척기간 #subject matter of lawsuit #changing dispositive grounds #binding force #res juticata #evasion of unrelated income #the identity of basic facts #special statute of limitation 국문요약Ⅰ. 서론Ⅱ. 소송물의 구조에 관한 개관Ⅲ 처분사유의 추가·변경의 범위Ⅳ. 기판력과 기속력의 관계Ⅴ. 조세소송에서 차단효의 범위Ⅵ. 결어 ― 납세자의 불이익 시정방안에 관한 제안參考文獻Abstract
Read full abstract