일본의 과세에 관한 시효제도의 이론적 고찰 - 징수권의 시효중단을 중심으로 -

Abstract

Article 38 of the Constitution stipulates it as “All citizens shall have the duty to pay taxes under the conditions as prescribed by Act.” This is the same as Article 30 of the Constitution of Japan. When the tax requirements shown in the taxpayer, object of taxation, standard for assessment, and tax rate are satisfied, it becomes necessary to pay tax to the people. However, the main concern of taxpayers would be the extinction rather than the establishment of tax obligations. Most taxpayers will try to fulfill their tax obligations with the payment of the tax. The act of paying out debt is called payment in the tax law. We need to consider what causes the obligation to pay taxes to disappear in addition to paying taxes. The authority to collect has a period that allows its exercise. With the lapse of time, it becomes impossible to exercise the right of collection, and the duty of tax payment disappears. It is the end of the tax obligation by the so-called extinctive prescription of right. It is thought that problems and doubts are likely to occur in practical terms as well, as it is a sort of special event that causes tax payments to disappear. In fact, it can be seen from judicial precedents that there is a dispute over extinctive prescriptions, including the grounds for interruption, as a result of the interruption of extinctive prescriptions in the right of collection. It is true that there is not much controversy despite the importance in practice. Considering these things, I would like to conduct comparative legal considerations through discussions in Japan. Tax law is more or less dependent on private law, and it is said that the relationship with private law is always an issue in both tax law legislation and its interpretation and application. Problems concerning the extinctive prescription system can be said to be an example. In the Interruption of extinctive Prescription, the application of the Civil Code provisions is exactly this. In general, the authority to collect is the right to store the tax amount paid as the performance of the tax liability that has already been established and to request or store the performance. Since the authority to collect is similar to private bonds, it is possible to apply the prescription system in the same way as private bonds. Such characteristics have a significant impact on the analysis of Article 27(2) of the National Tax Collection Act. The above provision stipulates that “Except as otherwise provided in this Act or other tax-related Acts, the provisions of the Civil Act shall be applied to the extinctive prescription”. However, it is necessary to take into account the fact that the tax authorities grant them the right to execute themselves if the taxpayer fails to perform his/her duty voluntarily. These points should be considered through the process of determining “special circumstances”. It would be quite encouraging that the Seoul High Court's 2016nu72596 ruling, the original verdict of the 2017du41771 ruling currently pending at the Supreme Court, specifically lays out the requirements for special circumstances. Rather, it is now necessary to focus on the categorization of the issue through discussions on determining the existence and absence of “special circumstances”.