Tax and customs matters in Korea exist at the intersection of administrative appeals and criminal liability — and require a lawyer who understands both. Atlas Legal provides comprehensive coverage of corporate tax and customs issues: tax and customs audit response, cancellation suits against tax assessments, and criminal defense in tax and customs cases. Drawing on the Managing Partner’s background as a former prosecutor, we have particular strength in criminal tax and customs defense, and provide optimal solutions from the penalty notification (tonggo chobun) decision through to appeal strategy.
A penalty notification (tonggo chobun) is a mechanism by which a tax or customs violation case can be closed without criminal referral by paying a sum equivalent to a fine. Missing the penalty notification opportunity through a misjudgment can lead to criminal prosecution and imprisonment. Conversely, complying with a penalty notification when there is no valid charge amounts to an admission of an offense. Making this judgment correctly is critical, and must be done in consultation with specialist counsel.
In tax and customs assessment appeals, both national tax and customs cases allow a choice of objection, review request, or Tax Tribunal petition — all within 90 days of notification. A cancellation suit (administrative litigation) may be filed within 90 days of the administrative decision. We work in collaboration with CPAs and customs brokers to provide integrated coverage from tax calculation disputes through to legal argument.
Objections (within 90 days), review requests, Tax Tribunal petitions, and administrative cancellation suits against unjust national and local tax assessments. Proceedings under the Framework Act on National Taxes and the Framework Act on Local Taxes
Objections, review requests (to the Commissioner of Korea Customs Service), Tax Tribunal petitions, and administrative litigation against customs duty assessments, penalty surcharges, and clearance suspensions. Proceedings under Customs Act Articles 118–131
Criminal defense in tax evasion, false tax invoice, and enforcement evasion cases under the Punishment of Tax Offenses Act. Penalty notification decision-making and post-referral criminal defense
Criminal defense in customs duty evasion, smuggling, and false labeling of origin cases under the Customs Act. Customs search and seizure response, early-stage criminal investigation response, penalty notification advisory
Pre-audit preparation, coordination of document production during audits, post-audit assessment appeals, and immediate response when an audit converts to a criminal investigation
Assessment of whether to comply with a penalty notification (admission effect, appeal prospects, amount appropriateness), strategy for compliance or challenge, and minimization of criminal referral risk
Smuggling defense — represented a company and its executives under investigation for smuggling (failure to file a customs declaration), establishing that the company was a buyer from an importer rather than an importer itself, and securing a non-prosecution disposition
Strategic goods notice violation defense — following a customs search and seizure for an alleged strategic goods import violation, proved that the items imported by the company did not qualify as strategic goods under the Foreign Trade Act, obtaining a non-prosecution disposition
Country of origin labeling advisory — for a company under customs investigation for false country of origin labeling, submitted a legal opinion establishing that the HS code had changed and that a substantial transformation had occurred, protecting the client’s interests
False tax invoice criminal defense — in a case charged under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes for false tax invoice issuance, proved that the invoices were inflated rather than entirely false, successfully reducing the applicable provision to the less severe Punishment of Tax Offenses Act
Tax Tribunal petition — imputed income to representative director: filed a Tax Tribunal petition against comprehensive income tax assessed as imputed income to a representative director, arguing that the registered representative was a nominal figurehead and the actual controller was a separate individual, protecting the client’s interests