미국연방세법상 조세소송제도에 관한 고찰 = A Study on the Federal Tax Litigation System under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This study aims to systematically analyze the structure and operation of the federal tax litigation system under U.S. tax law and, based on this analysis, to explore directions for improving Korea’s tax dispute resolution system. In Korea, under the administrative litigation preclusion principle, a substantial number of tax objections are filed at the Tax Tribunal and the National Tax Service’s review stages；however, only a portion of these cases proceed to the judicial review stage, giving rise to persistent concerns regarding the effectiveness of judicial review and taxpayers’ access to remedies. Accordingly, various institutional reform discussions have been conducted, including the establishment of specialized tax adjudication bodies, the reorganization of administrative review structures, and the question of granting litigation representation rights to tax professionals.
The U.S. tax litigation system has developed a framework for the specialized adjudication of tax cases centered on the United States Tax Court, based on a dual structure in which judicial courts and legislative courts coexist. In particular, the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tax Court over petitions for redetermination of deficiency notices, as well as the establishment and operation of the non-attorney Tax Court Practitioner system, holds significant comparative law implications in terms of ensuring the expertise of tax litigation.
This study analyzed the procedures and exclusive jurisdiction structure of U.S. tax litigation, focusing on the Internal Revenue Code, the United States Tax Court Rules, and key judicial precedents, and examined the background and qualification requirements for the establishment of the Tax Court Practitioner system. Based on this analysis, comparative insights were drawn for the Korean tax dispute system, particularly regarding the organization of specialized tax litigation institutions, the linkage between administrative and judicial review, and the method of granting representation rights to tax professionals.
In conclusion, a comparative legal analysis of the U.S. tax litigation system provides valuable reference for deepening discussions on the establishment of a tax court and the design of tax litigation representation systems in Korea. In particular, the U.S. system offers meaningful comparative benchmarks for enhancing the specialization of tax litigation, restructuring the appellate system, and ensuring the effectiveness of taxpayer remedies.