A Study on the Application of Special Provisions for Claims for Correction due to Changes in the Value of Inherited Property : In Connection with the Heir's Joint Tax Obligations

Article 79 (2) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act stipulates special cases for requesting correction of inheritance tax different from Article 45-2 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, which is a general regulation on requesting correction. The main content is applied when there is a change in the inherited property between heirs due to a lawsuit judgment, such as a request for recovery of inheritance, after the tax base filing deadline for inheritance tax. Administrative interpretation and tax administration practice, however, are deemed to have fulfilled their joint tax obligations if the heir's inherited property or total inheritance tax does not change even if the mutually acquired inherited property changes between heirs due to the ruling, and if the inheritance tax first paid by the heir falls within the limit of the heir's joint payment obligation. As a result, the heir whose original inherited property was reduced is not allowed to request correction or decide to refund it. The joint tax obligation of inheritance tax differs from the joint payment obligation of the Framework Act on National Taxes, which does not, because the scope and limit of liability are set among heirs. The joint relationship between joint taxpayers relates to the fulfillment of already established tax obligations or tax collection. It is not about the determination of the tax liability itself. Therefore, even a joint taxpayer needs to determine each specific tax obligation that is a legal inheritance tax taxpayer. Nevertheless, in the case of Korea, the correction request system is being operated extremely passively due to joint tax obligations. If there is a change in the inherited share that corresponds to the basic fact of individual tax calculation, a request for correction should be widely allowed to protect the rights of taxpayers. In addition, even if there is no judgment, if it is confirmed that the legal portion of the heir has been returned or if the inherited property is proved to have been returned, a special correction request should be applied. Thus, as an institutional improvement measure for the special request for correction of inheritance tax, additional provisions may be enacted to list the reasons for the request for correction in the Enforcement Decree or to include lawsuits similar to each subparagraph of Article 81 (2) of the Enforcement Decree. Measures should be sought to reduce the taxpayer's labor and promote the convenience of tax administration by not passing through the taxpayer's request for correction due to changes in inherited property and the tax office's correction disposition. One of them can be considered to establish special provisions in the law so that taxpayers can file a revised report even if the amount of tax paid is increased as in the past as well as if it is reduced. In the case of an heir who has already been determined due to an increase in inherited property, a legal basis is needed to allow the head of the tax office, etc. to make corrections ex officio instead of his revised report.