조세법의 여러 영역에서 사용하는 부정한 행위의 범위

Abstract

Taxpayers cannot be allowed to avoid what he or she should do and to cheat the tax authorities. In the tax law, this is called an improper acts and regulated. Improper acts disadvantage you in many ways. If taxes are evaded, deducted or refunded for improper acts, they are criminally punished. In addition, as the limitation period for imposition is prolonged, an unstable state which the tax office can impose taxes at any time continues. If you do not report properly or pay in time, you will be charged an additional tax even if you do not commit improper acts, and if you add improper acts, you will be charged an additional tax at a higher rate. The Supreme Court seems to have thought that it would be better to judge improper acts used in various areas on a single basis. And this idea was also reflected in the statute. In the Tax Offender Penalty Act, improper acts was defined, and the type of behavior belonging to it was specifically written down. In addition, the definition and type of the Tax Offender Punishment Act are borrowed from the Framework Act on National Taxes and the Framework Act on Local Taxes, and the concept of improper acts is used as one. Using one criterion in this way can reduce confusion that can occur by giving the same phrase with different meanings. The concept of improper acts itself is vague and general. It is not easy to find the meaning and the scope of improper acts used in one area. Nevertheless, great efforts must be made to find the unique meaning of oneself in each area and to distinguish it from others. The same is true in case of interpreting and applying it in practice after passing through these legislative steps. However, attempts to set concepts used in different areas with the same standard have had a reaction that results in inconsistency with the purpose of the system. There have also been concerns that it might cause disadvantages that do not fit the size of the mistake. For this reason, there has been a movement to interpret the improper acts of violating the Tax Offender Penalty Act, the improper acts of the limitation period for imposition, and the improper acts of additional tax in accordance with the purpose of each system. If the Supreme Court’s judgment so far, the circumstances and appearances of legislation reflecting it are completely excluded, the scope can be determined according to the purpose of each system in accordance with the area of operation. First of all, the scope of objective behavior may be different. In this regard, there may be questions of what an active act is and whether it can include omission. In addition, issues include whether acts that make it impossible or remarkably difficult to collect only taxes can be included in improper acts, and whether these results can be called tax evasion. The scope of subjective perception may also be different. It is necessary to examine whether the consequences of improper acts or tax evasion should be recognized, and furthermore, whether it should be recognized that tax income is reduced. However, it is always difficult to produce specific and valid results just by interpreting the existing laws and regulations. More and more fundamentally, it is necessary to seek a solution through legislation. I think it would be sufficient to break away from the form of borrowing a present concept even if the name of improper acts remains the same. This is because even phrases that are used in many places do not always have to be interpreted the same. Furthermore, the type and scope of actions suitable for each area can be determined, and the name that can includes them properly can be found and attached. In this case, the area of operation, the purpose of the system, and the balance between wrongdoing and sanctions should be comprehensively considered. It is better for the Framework Act on National Taxes and the Framework Act on Local Taxes to separately set the concept of improper acts. The improper acts of the limitation period for imposition and the improper acts of additional tax should be different. In addition, the Tax Offender Penalty Act can independently regulate improper acts. It is not necessary to list the types of improper acts as it is now. It’s a problem because it’s faint and vague, so an attempt to write everything down in detail is not the answer. When making a statute, it should also be acknowledged that there are parts that have no choice but to be filled with interpretation later.