국민의 권익의식이 신장되어 가면서 그와 함께 사법부의 판단도 국가 행정 작용에 있어서의 처분성의 개념을 확대하고 납세자의 권익보호와 함께 공평과세를 확보해 나가고 있다.
세무조사는 그 실시 과정에서 위법하게 수집되는 자료와 그에 기한 부과처분의 효력의 문제뿐만 아니라, 세무조사 실시 이전의 세무조사 사전통지의 처분성까지 중요 쟁점화 되고 있다.
세무조사가 과세요건 사실과 관련된 자료와 정보를 수집하는 그리고 간접강제가 수반되는 권력적사실행위라면 그리고 그에 기초하여 부과처분이 행하여진다면, 세무조사 사전통지 자체가 개인 및 기업의 권리⋅의무에 미치는 영향은 크다고 할 것이다.
세무조사를 당하는 피조사자로서는 장래에 발생할 수 있는 법적 불이익과 법적 불안을 과세처분 전에라도 제거하여 법적 안정성을 꽤하고 실추되어 가는 브랜드 가치, 기업의 이미지, 영업비밀 및 중요정보의 누수 현상을 하시라도 막아야할 법적 실익이 있는 것이다.
따라서 세무조사 사전통지의 처분성은 그 자체로서 향후 진행될 법적 불이익 내지 과세처분 등을방지하기 위해서도 인정되어야 한다. 특히 세무조사의 처분성 인정은 세무조사 선정 대상을 그 규정과요건에 맞지 않게 행사한 경우, 세무조사 재조사(중복조사) 등에서 그 의미가 크다고 할 것이다.
세무조사의 법적 근거는 각 개별 세법상의 질문조사권이지만, 그 절차와 요건은 국세기본법 등에비교적 자세히 상술되어 있고 세무조사에 있어서는 국세기본법이 개별세법 보다 우선 적용되는 결과국세기본법 상의 절차와 요건에 위반된 개별 세법상의 질문조사권의 행사는 위법하게 되어 취소의 대상이 될 수 있을 것이다.
위법한 세무조사로 얻어진 자료에 의해 행하여진 과세처분 등 세무조사 상의 절차 상 하자가 과세처분에 승계된 경우, 당해 과세처분의 효력에 관하여는 학설 및 판례가 입장을 달리하고 있다. 그러나다수설 및 판례는 세무조사 절차상의 하자가 중대하고 명백한 경우는 그에 근거한 과체처분은 당연무효로, 절차상의 하자가 중대하지만 명백하지 않은 경우 등은 단지 취소할 수 있다고 보고 있다.
그러나 절차상의 하자가 중대성과 결합하여 절차의 실질적 내용을 형해화 할 정도에 이르렀다면 명백성의 요건을 충족시키지 않더라도 그 하자의 위법성을 근거로 당연 무효의 판결도 가능하다고 볼수 있다. 납세자의 권익보호를 위하여는 납세자의 권익침해가 형법상 처벌 가능할 정도로 위법한 행위에 의하여 이루어 졌다면 이는 이미 실체적, 절차적으로 과세처분으로서의 실질적, 형식적 요건을 갖추었다고 볼 수 없을 것이기 때문이다.
이에 본고는 정권교체기에 빈번히 행해 질 수 있는 세무조사의 절차의 중요성과 이와 관련된 납세의무자의 권리구제의 확보를 강조하고자 한다.
This study attempted to derive appropriate conclusions in terms of the meaning and legal nature of the tax investigation and the basis by examining of the provisions, theories, and precedents of the relevant National Tax Basic Act, In other words, the tax investigation may be seen as a collection procedure of a fact that meets tax requirements and the taxation data or an activity of information collection. It is also said not to be a complete random survey that indirectly forces a taxpayer who does not cooperate with a question investigation right through punishment provisions. but to be a factual act or a powerful act accompanied by the exercise of public power. In addition, a tax investigation right is done mainly by a question investigation right so the question investigation right prescribed in each individual tax law may be the legal basis of tax investigation. However, the National Tax Act in Korea applies to the individual tax law with regard to the procedures and requirements so the exercise of a question investigation right that do not meet the procedures and requirements of that National Tax Act may be an unlawful taxation disposition.
Meanwhile, the disposition of the tax investigation decision (advance) noticed before the actual tax investigation by a question investigation right may be a problem.
When an tax audit starts or a person is selected as the subject, there is a need to protect the legal anxieties and obstacles anticipated in the future in advance and to acknowledge the disposition of the preliminary notice of tax investigation (decision) considering that the taxation investigation initiation decision itself must have the legal process and certain limitations. In this case, the pre-notice of the tax investigation can be seen to do together with a tax investigation in the future. It is also advantageous in terms of protection of taxpayers’ interests.
It may be also in line with the precedent of directly affecting a taxpayer right by extending the scope and concepts of disposability but also of considering that the taxpayer may be substantially disadvantaged or damaged. In doing so, in the case of a tax investigation (result of implementation) corresponding to an intermediate act, the taxpayer has a legitimate interest to remove the legal anxiety or disability caused by the intermediate stage of the tax in the future. Thus, it is desirable to recognize the disposition. As the disposability of the tax investigation itself is acknowledged, the taxpayer’s right can be broadened, and it will be possible to prevent the abuse of rights by the tax office and secure the principle of tax equality.
Therefore, it has been greatly emphasized the need that advance notice of the tax investigation should be a legal requirement to legally enforce the tax investigation and the need of allowing taxpayers to dispute before taxation by recognizing the disposition of a tax investigation in a re-investment (duplicate investigation).
Re-investigation is not allowed in principle, only possible if it is allowed in exceptional cases in the National Tax Basic Law. Among them, “if there is clear evidence that tax evasion charges are acceptable,” it is the case that it should be strictly limited to a case of being recognized to a considerable extent by the material with objectivity and rationality of the probability of tax evasion. This material does not include data already examined in previous tax investigations. In other words, the illegally collected material related to ‘clear data’ as a requirement of reinvestigation should be excluded in principle. This is because the principle of legal difference in the constitution is the one to apply to all administrative acts through the country, including not only criminal lawsuits but also administrative lawsuits and tax lawsuits, etc., which relieve the public interest.
Finally, the effect of the taxation can be a problem, which is done based on the data collected in violation of selection of tax audit subjects, commencement of a tax investigation, re-investigation requirements or procedures, etc.
In this case, all imposition dispositions on a basis of an unlawful tax investigation is illegal so there are a view that the illegality should be revoked, regardless of whether it is a serious fault or not, and another view that it is necessary to decide whether or not to be subject to cancellation depending on the actual infringement of the procedure. However, the theory of importance and clearance is now numbered that if the procedural flaw is significant and obvious, it is invalid but the fact that the defamation which is great but not obvious, is limited to cancellation. However, it can be a faithful opinion to the taxpayer ‘s right of relief seeing that if the degree of the offense is an act that is punishable by criminal law, it does not require even clearance in the light of their significance. If we always have to include clearance, it is a question of the need of the clearance, considering that it is not ignorable that the fact that the National Taxation Act, etc. have specified specific procedures and requirements in detail in relation to the tax officer and that there are a lot of cases that can be punished by criminal punishments in the course of conducting a tax investigation or collecting an evidence and another fact that if the illegality is already obvious, there are many cases in which criminal punishment is possible in the process of conducting a tax investigation or collecting evidences and in which criminal penalties can be imposed thereby. This is a further area to be studied in the future. This study is thus intended to examine the significance of the due process in the tax investigation process to remind you once again.