납세자권리보호제도의 실효성 확보 방안 연구

• 영문명: A study on Securing Effectiveness of the Taxpayer Rights Protection System
• 발행기관: 한국조세법학회
• 저자명: 신호영(Shin Ho Young) 서희승(Suh Hee Seung)
• 간행물 정보: 『조세논총』제7권 제2호, 103~139쪽, 전체 37쪽
• 주제분류: 법학 > 법학
• 파일형태: PDF
• 발행일자: 2022.06.30

국문 초록

납세자권리보호제도가 본격적으로 시행된 지 상당한 시간이 흘렀다. 우리나라 납세자권리보호제도는 그 양상이 다양하고 법제화된 범위가 넓어 일견 납세자를 위한 든든한 제도처럼 보이나, 제도가 작동하는 현실을 살펴보면 그 형식과 실질의 무게가 동등한지에 대한 의문이 있다. 이 연구는 납세자권리보호제도의 현황과 운영 실태를 살펴보고, 다른 나라 제도와 비교를 해보았으며, 제도 시행 과정에서 나타나고 있는 문제점을 분석하여, 개선방안까지 제시하는 것으로 구성되었다. 현재의 납세자권리보호제도는 실효성 측면에서 문제를 가진다. 여러 납세자권리보호기구들이 독립성을 갖지 못하고, 옥상옥으로 설치되어 다른 납세자권리보호기구의 납세자권리보호 역할을 제한하기도 한다. 납세자권리보호기구가 능동적이고 적극적으로 활동하지 못하고, 제도의 구성이 지나치게 복잡하게 되어 있어 수범자가 제도의 운용에 대하여 알기도 어렵다. 이를 해결하기 위해서는 납세자보호관의 독립성과 인사권, 능동적 관여권을 보장하고, 권리보호요청처리·조사관리·고충민원처리 절차에서 납세자보호담당관의 시정요구와 세무관서장의 수용 또는 불수용으로 처리절차를 단순화하는 것이 필요하다. 또한 납세자보호관(담당관)과 세무관서장의 의견이 대립하는 때에 독립적인 납세자보호위원회가 결정권을 가지도록 하면 납세자권리보호제도가 제 기능을 다하는 데 보탬이 될 것이다. 나아가 납세자보호관(담당관)이 세무조사 대상자 선정과정에 참여할 수 있도록 제도를 도입하고, 세무조사 대상자 선정이나 세무조사 기간 연장에 대한 손실보상제도를 마련하며, 절차 위반이 있는 경우 납세자에 대한 일정 한도의 금전배상제도를 마련하면 납세자권리보호가 보다 충실하게 이루어지고 납세자 불만 경감에도 효과적일 것이다.

영문 초록

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.

목차

Ⅰ. 서 론

Ⅱ. 우리나라와 다른 나라의 납세자권리보호제도

Ⅲ. 납세자권리보호제도의 문제점

Ⅳ. 개선방안

Ⅴ. 결 론

참고문헌

키워드

납세자보호 납세자권리보호제도 납세자보호관 납세자보호담당관 납세자보호위원회 옴부즈만 taxpayer advocacy the taxpayer rights protection system the National Tax Advocate(official for taxpayer advocacy service) Official in charge of protecting taxpayers taxpayer protection committee ombudsman