[Sejong = E-Daily Reporter Kim Mi-Young ] Although the Tax Tribunal announced a policy to make its joint meetings of tax tribunal judges public, citing a desire to increase transparency in tax appeal proceedings, it has emerged that this has never actually been implemented. The establishment of a code of ethics—which includes obligations such as reporting external contacts—has not been finalized, and the promise to expand asset disclosure requirements to include Grade 7 employees remains unfulfilled. Critics point out that follow-up measures are proceeding slowly compared to the ambitious reform plan that was initially announced.

According to data submitted to Rep. Shin Dong-wook of the People Power Party, a member of the National Assembly’s Political Affairs Committee, on the 13th, the Tax Tribunal has not held a single public meeting since implementing the principle of open joint meetings on July 24.

The Tax Tribunal, a taxpayer rights protection agency under the Prime Minister’s Office, announced in April its “Reform Plan for Fair and Transparent Tax Adjudication,” stating that it would fully open to the public—with taxpayer consent—joint meetings of tax adjudicators that have a significant impact on national tax administration. The intent was to enhance the transparency and credibility of the adjudication process by allowing the public to directly verify the proceedings and discussions.

However, actual implementation has fallen short of expectations. All cases heard during the 9th and 10th Joint Meetings in July and August were conducted in private because consent for public disclosure was not obtained. An official from the Board stated, “The petitioners all refused to consent to public disclosure due to concerns over the leakage of tax information, the protection of business information, privacy violations, and the protection of institutional information.”

The Tax Tribunal maintains that, in accordance with the principle of closed-door proceedings for Tax Tribunal meetings under the Framework Act on National Taxes, it has no choice but to decide whether to make proceedings public only with the consent of the petitioners. However, critics point out that these practical constraints should have been fully considered during the process of promoting public proceedings. Critics argue that, given the structure requiring taxpayer consent, it was foreseeable from the outset that achieving a track record of public disclosure would be difficult; therefore, institutional safeguards should have been put in place after assessing feasibility, rather than prioritizing the goal of increasing transparency.

The “Tax Tribunal Code of Ethics,” which includes obligations such as reporting contact with outside parties to prevent concerns about compromising independence and fairness, remains in the “planning” stage even though nearly five months have passed since the policy to enact it was announced. The promise to expand the scope of mandatory asset disclosure from the current level of Grade 4 civil servants and above to Grade 7 and above—as is the case with the National Tax Service and the Korea Customs Service—has also not yet been fulfilled. An official from the Tax Tribunal stated, “We are currently in discussions with the Ministry of Personnel Management regarding amendments to the Enforcement Decree of the Public Officials Ethics Act concerning the expansion of the scope of asset disclosure.”

The notification service, designed to inform parties of the status of their cases, has also fallen short of its initial targets. In its reform plan, the Tax Tribunal announced that it would enhance the “My Case Inquiry Service” and automatically notify parties every 45 days regarding the progress of their cases and the reasons for any delays. Although the service went live on June 1, as of September, the compliance rate—measured against the total number of cases subject to notification—stood at only 81.6 percent.

An official from the Tribunal explained, “Since the system relies on case officers entering the reasons for delays and issuing notifications, and considering factors such as petitioners’ unregistered cell phone numbers, temporary absences of case officers due to vacation or leave of absence, and the daily volume of cases requiring notification, it is structurally difficult to achieve a 100% compliance rate.”

Rep. Shin criticized, “Although the President issued instructions and announced reform measures, no tangible results have been achieved in terms of task implementation or follow-up actions,” adding, “This is a classic example of the Lee Jae-myung administration’s ‘showpiece’ reform announcements.”