beta
청구인이 제출한 탈세제보자료가 포상금의 지급대상인 '중요한 자료'에 해당하는지 여부

조세심판원 조세심판 | 2018-12-05 | 조심2018부3107 | 기타

【Request Number】

Appellate Court Decision 2018Da3107 ( December 06, 2018)

[세 목]

Other

[Types of Decision]

Dismissal

[Summary of Decision]

The materials submitted by the claimant as the key tax evasion report are difficult to recognize that the requirements for taxation, such as the donor, donation date, taxable value, etc. by each gift item necessary for the taxation of gift tax without a tax investigation by itself. The disposition agency alone, based on the materials submitted as the key tax evasion report, has secured evidentiary materials necessary for the taxation of the tax, such as gift tax, and additionally collected the tax amount of the person subject to tax evasion by securing the evidentiary materials necessary for the taxation of the taxpayer through a tax investigation. In light of the fact that the materials submitted by the claimant as the key tax evasion report are not deemed to fall under the “material material necessary for the assessment of the tax evasion amount because specific facts are stated,” so the disposition agency has not

[Related Acts]

Article 84-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

[주 문]

The appeal is dismissed.

[이 유]

1. Summary of disposition;

A. On October 3, 2013, through the National Tax Service homepage, the petitioner filed a report on tax evasion (transfer to the disposition agency on October 15, 2013) stating that an OOO, a non-profit corporation located in OO (hereinafter “OOO”) filed a complaint on the omission of gift tax, etc. to be paid at the time of establishment. On October 17, 2013, the petitioner provided further explanation to support the report on tax evasion and requested the disposition agency to verify the suspicion of omission of OOO on November 12 through 19, 2013, and submitted a list of additional information, such as information on the fact that the OOO was not a public interest foundation under the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and that it was not paid gift tax equivalent to those of the OOO and the OOO of real estate after its establishment for the period of three times on November 12 through 2013, 2013.

(b) On October 27, 2013, the Administration notified the applicant of the results of the assessment of tax evasion reports to the effect that the data reported on October 3, 2013 was used for taxation and that the amount of additional tax imposed on the person subject to the notification cannot be disclosed, and subsequently, conducted a corporate integration investigation on OO during the period from March 3, 2014 to September 7, 2014 and collected an amount equivalent to KRW OO and KRW OO of the Corporate Tax.

C. On March 7, 2018, an applicant filed an application for the payment of a monetary reward to a disposition agency on the grounds that the disposition agency did not constitute “material data” subject to the payment of a monetary reward under Article 84-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 65-3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act on the same day.

D. The claimant appealed and filed an appeal on June 4, 2018.

2. Opinions of the claimant and disposition agency;

A. The claimant's assertion

The key information on tax evasion is an important material that is subject to a reward.

First, the claimant made a report on tax evasion based on facts confirmed in the specific process of performing his/her duties.

On July 201, the claimant opened the real estate brokerage office on the second floor of the OO's workplace in which the owner of the building in question was aware of the OO's shares among the owners of the building in question. The newly appointed president (unregistered entry) visited the workplace of the claimant in question to use it as an OO's office during that workplace and at that time registered it as an O's office, and then the mail is likely to move to the office due to the internal circumstances of the foundation, so the mail is likely to move to the office. Since the office work of the claimant is completed, the claimant proposed to assist the claimant in the affairs of the O's office while engaging in the real estate brokerage business, which is the main business of the building in question. This fact is proved through a copy of the register of the land located in the OO Foundation, a copy of the register of the land located in the place of business, and a copy of the name of the applicant's deposit account for a considerable period of time from OO's office for a period of time (OO's name).

The claimant requested that the new president classify only documents related to the OO in a document box where multiple documents are complicatedly mixed. During that process, the claimant, who had tax knowledge as a licensed real estate agent, showed the minutes of the board of directors' meeting in the process of transferring the OO's property to the OO's foundation, tax payment and real estate holding status, details of the deposit account such as financial institutions such as OO's name, OO's name, etc. The fact that it was difficult for the OO's establishment at the time of the establishment of the OO foundation without obtaining authorization for the establishment of the public-service corporation under the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (OO's name, January 207). The fact that the OO's establishment of the O foundation did not obtain the authorization for the establishment of the OO foundation's cash donation from the OO foundation to the 30th of the 10th of the O foundation's cash donation and the O's cash donation in the process of its establishment.

The claimant, among documents which were copied by mistake for reasons such as breaking the documents of the above new president and put them in a garbage box, etc., he/she knew the fact of tax evasion of the above OO Foundation while securing the certificate of tax payment of local tax, etc., and determined that it should be difficult for the new accounting corporation to completely file a report on tax evasion of the gift tax to prove that the director's new accounting corporation did not have any error in the name of the founder (excluding those of the founder for reasons such as failure to do so to the heir) and that it was difficult for the director to prove that the director's new accounting corporation's new accounting corporation did not have any duty evasion of the gift tax, and that the director's new accounting corporation's new accounting corporation's new accounting corporation's accounting corporation's accounting corporation's accounting corporation's accounting corporation's accounting corporation's accounting corporation's accounting corporation's accounting corporation's accounting corporation's accounting corporation's accounting corporation's accounting corporation's accounting corporation's accounting corporation's accounting report's accounting corporation's accounting corporation's accounting corporation's accounting of the above 2012 years.

In these circumstances, while the claimant had considered the time and method of reporting the tax evasion, the new president collected documents to have the applicant kept a close relation with another person on duty (the customer requesting the sale of the property of the founder who is the decedent) and caused inconvenience to the claimant. While the claimant could obtain the relevant documents, he could not be able to do so, but he did not have any objection to the new president of the O in multiple lawsuits, and the head of the O was in a e-mail relationship with the tax authority. The 13th anniversary of the fact that the OO's specific information was presented as evidence, the 13th anniversary of the fact that the 20th anniversary of the fact that the 13th anniversary of the fact that the 14th anniversary of the fact that the OO's cash donation was presented to the disposition authority, the 10th anniversary of the fact that the 13th anniversary of the 2013th of the fact that the 13th of the 2013th of the 14th of the 10th of the issue.

In short, taking into account such background as a member of the OO office, the background leading up to the knowledge of the OO's tax evasion, the background leading up to the review, background, etc. of the OO's tax evasion report, the OO's tax evasion report should be deemed to have been made on the basis of a clear fact-finding basis, which is not simply collected by the claimant, but indirectly observed at the center of the case where the OOO was evaded (it was known that the OO became aware of the relevant fact through evidence related to the establishment date of the founder and former president (in fact-finding) prior to seven years prior to the date of the filing of the OO tax evasion report).

Second, the disposition agency was able to collect the tax evasion amount by conducting the tax investigation as the key tax evasion report.

As the claimant presented above, based on evidence collected by legitimate methods while serving as an employee of the OO, he/she conducted a tax evasion report to the disposition agency on the issue of deposits and real estate size (including a list of real estate), financial assets of OO deposited in financial institutions (OO). The disposition agency conducted a tax investigation on OO and collected gift tax, corporate tax, etc. equivalent to OO won, so the report on tax evasion should be deemed to be "important materials" under Article 84-2 (2) 1 (b) or (c) of the Framework Act on National Taxes.

Meanwhile, since the claimant does not include specific evidentiary data to confirm the donor, donee, date of donation, taxable value, method of donation, etc. in the issue tax evasion report, the disposition agency may secure more than 400 of the transaction details of the deposit account directly by the disposition agency on the site verification of the financial institution, and real estate property was also confirmed by the registration data. However, as seen earlier, the claimant could not identify any donor other than the OOO, and the disposition agency should have investigated at least 1,000 domestic financial institutions and 7 years prior to the time of the investigation, but the applicant could smoothly conduct a tax investigation by providing OO bank and specific donated property scale (the applicant's statement of transaction, such as the deposit account in the name of OO which the director deposited the private funds, is irrelevant to the omission of the gift tax by OO, and the remaining balance of the deposit account is not impossible to withdraw, and the disposition agency's assertion that the real estate was not related to the submission of the list of real estate should not be considered as improper.

In addition, the opinion that the disposition agency knew that the OO was not a public-service corporation at the time of its establishment, and thus the issue of tax evasion reporting is not an important material. However, the issue of this recommendation is whether the OO first knows that it is not a public-service corporation, but whether the applicant has provided the disposition agency with grounds for determining the gift tax on the OO corporation (in the absence of a dispute tax evasion reporting, the disposition agency did not know the fact of tax evasion of the OO's gift tax). If the disposition agency knew that the OO was not a public-service corporation, it is not a relevant agency, but it is not a first verifying the fact that the OO's unpaid gift tax was confirmed.

(b) Opinions of disposition agencies;

The key information on tax evasion is not an important material that is subject to a monetary reward.

The "material material" subject to a monetary reward includes specific material that can easily verify the fact of tax evasion, as stipulated in Article 84-2 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 65-4 (11) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. If the material provided is merely the point of the possibility of tax evasion, the abstract suspicion, and the collection of simple rumors, etc., the tax authorities cannot easily verify the fact of tax evasion based on such material. Therefore, such material does not constitute "material material" subject to a monetary reward (Supreme Court Decision 2013Du18568 Decided March 13, 2014). The key issue report is that the head of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment is not a public corporation at the time of establishment registration, and that the taxpayer is not a non-profit corporation or a non-profit corporation, the head of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment separately from the date of registration of the donated property to the public interest corporation or a non-profit corporation, which is not a public interest corporation.

After requesting the director of the regional tax office of OO to inquire about the whole deposit account opened in the name of OOO, and collecting 400 amount of the relevant deposit account opened in eight financial institutions (or branches), including OOO banks (or branches) for the period of 2007 through 2013 through the field investigation of financial institutions, etc., investigation of financial transaction details for the whole country's financial institutions, such as collecting 400 amount of the relevant deposit account opened in eight financial institutions (or branches), and in the case of real estate, investigation of the real estate holding details of the real estate held by the OO Foundation recorded in the computerized data of the National Tax Service, and verification of specific taxation requirements, such as donor, donee, donation date, donated property, etc., is different from the fact.

3. Hearing and determination

A. Key issue

Whether information on tax evasion submitted by a claimant constitutes "material material" subject to a monetary reward;

B. Relevant statutes

(1) Framework Act on National Taxes (Amended by Act No. 12162, Jan. 1, 2014)

Article 84-2 (Payment of Monetary Rewards) (1) The Commissioner of the National Tax Service may pay a monetary reward not exceeding two billion won to any of the following persons:

1. A person who provides critical data in calculating the tax evasion or the illegally refunded or deducted tax amount;

(2) The important materials referred to in paragraph (1) 1 and 6 shall be as follows:

1. In cases falling under paragraph (1) 1: Those falling under any of the following items:

(a) Materials or books that contain specific facts about the place of transaction, the date or period of transaction, the items and amount of transaction, etc. that enables verification of the details of tax evasion or illegally refunded or deducted (excluding those for which a tax investigation is being conducted at the time of submission of the materials or books; hereafter referred to as "materials" in this Article);

(b)specific information by which the whereabouts of the material falling under item (a) can be identified;

(c) Other materials prescribed by Presidential Decree as worthy material in light of the circumstances of methods, details and scales, etc., under which taxes are evaded or illegally refunded or deducted;

(4) The provision or reporting of data under the subparagraphs of paragraph (1) shall be made in writing with a clearly written statement of the name and address and signed or sealed thereon. In such cases, evidential data, etc. which are objectively verified shall be attached.

(2) Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25201, Feb. 21, 2014)

Article 65-4 (Payment of Rewards) (1) An amount calculated by applying the following rate of payment to the amount of tax evaded or the amount of tax unjustly refunded or deducted (in cases of a violation of the duty to issue tax invoices under Article 10 (1) through (4) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, referring to the amount equivalent to 15/100 of the amount of tax calculated by applying the rate of value-added tax to the value of supply; hereafter referred to as "amount of tax evaded, etc." in this Article) on a person falling under Article 84-2 (1) 1 of the Act may be paid as a bounty: Provided, That where a bounty exceeds two

┌───────┬────────────────────────┐

2. Amount of tax evasion, etc. 1

├───────┼────────────────────────┤

15/100 above 50 million won;

2. 10 million won or less;

├───────┼────────────────────────┤

10 million won + 10/100 of the amount exceeding 500 million won.

2.0 million won or less;

├───────┼────────────────────────┤

200 million won and 220 million won + 5/100 of the excess amount exceeding two billion won.

dr. Satus Sat

(11) "Materials prescribed by Presidential Decree" in Article 84-2 (2) 1 (c) of the Act means materials falling under any of the following subparagraphs:

1. Data on tax evasion or accounting fraud related to unjust refund or deduction;

2. Data concerning the speculative transactions of real estate, such as land and housing, related to the tax evasion;

3. Data concerning the activities threatening public safety such as smuggling and narcotics related to the tax evasion;

4. Materials that are reasonably viewed as critical material in light of the circumstances of methods, details and scales, etc., under which taxes are evaded or taxes are illegally refunded or deducted.

⑱ 국세청장은 다음 각 호의 구분에 따른 날이 속하는 달의 말일부터 2개월 이내에 포상금을 지급하여야 한다.

1. Monetary rewards under Article 84-2 (1) 1 of the Act: The date on which the amount of tax evasion, etc. is determined as the result of payment (where a monetary reward is paid due to tax evasion, etc. due to the tax offense under the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, referring to the implementation of a notification or the confirmation of punishment by trial under Article 15 of the Procedure for the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act) and the following period expires after

(a) The period for requesting an examination under Article 61 of the Act and the period for requesting an examination under Article 68 of the Act;

(c) Period for filing a lawsuit under Article 20 of the Administrative Litigation Act;

C. Fact-finding investigations

(1) The facts verified by the disposition agency are as follows.

(A) On October 3, 2013, through the National Tax Service website, a document that appears to have printed out the “statement on tax evasion” of the National Tax Service’s website appears to have presented an interim reply to the effect that “OO Foundation knows that it has omitted gift tax, etc. to be paid from the initial date of its establishment to the date of its establishment and files a complaint.” On October 8, 2013, the applicant presented an interim reply to the effect that “the details of the applicant’s request for electronic civil petition have been sent to the director of the regional tax office of the regional tax office for the submission of information on tax evasion.” On October 15, 2013, the head of the regional tax office provided an interim reply to the effect that “the details of the applicant’s request for tax evasion are sent to the head of the regional tax office of the regional tax office for the submission of information on the processing of the information on tax evasion and the request for supplementation of information on the processing of the information on the taxpayer’s request for tax evasion,” other than the detailed information on the taxpayer’s request for tax evasion and the submission of evidence.

(B) Examining documents (the date and time deemed to be the date and time to be the date and time to be submitted, and the e-mail sent to the disposal agency) deemed to be “additional supporting or supporting material” submitted by the applicant, the claimant on November 12, 2013: “OO is a non-profit incorporated foundation, which is not a public interest corporation, cash assets contributed and donated at the time of its establishment ( January 2010), and OO or more donated cash assets donated by the founder from February 2010 to the time of its death; the applicant did not pay gift tax on the 10th anniversary of March 2010 to the disposal agency; the 20th anniversary of the acquisition of O or more of the 20th anniversary of the 10th anniversary of the OO, the 20th anniversary of the 20th anniversary of the 10th anniversary of the 10th anniversary of the OO or more; the 20th anniversary of the O’s acquisition of the 20th anniversary of the 201.

(C) Examining the official text of the “Notification of the Results of Handling Tax Evasion Report”, the notice submitted by the disposition agency on October 27, 2013 to the applicant on October 16, 2013 was used for taxation in accordance with the law and principles. The details of specific processing, such as the amount of additional tax imposed on the person subject to the report, are not disclosed in accordance with Article 9(1) of the Official Information Disclosure Act and Article 81-13 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, but the details of the payment of the reward are not stated therein.

(d)In light of the review of the exclusion from the payment of rewards for tax evasion information submitted by the agency (as of November 2014, 201), the agency has collected the amount of national taxes equivalent to those of the OOO members ( gift tax OO members, corporate tax OO members) from March 3, 2014 to September 7, 2014 by conducting an integrated investigation into the corporation of the OOO Foundation. The claimant fails to submit "data or books stating specific facts as to whether the OO is a public interest corporation and there is a suspicion of tax evasion," thereby confirming whether the agency is a public interest corporation (on-site verification) from the related agency (OO, the Ministry of Culture and Tourism) and converting the court's decision on the contributed real estate into partial investigation. Since the agency has confirmed the amount of 400 deposit accounts through eight financial institutions such as interest, dividend payment, inquiry, and OOO to determine the amount of financial property amount through the National Tax Service, it has determined the amount of tax evasion information equivalent to those of the OO2.

(E) On March 7, 2018, an applicant filed an application for the payment of a reward for tax evasion with the content of requesting the disposition authority to “payment of a reward as the disposition authority collected an OO won as a gift tax evasion report.” However, on the same day, the disposition authority rejected the said applicant’s application on the grounds that the pertinent report on tax evasion does not constitute “material material materials” subject to Article 84-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 65-4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

(f)On March 3, 2014, when considering the "written reasons for the application for the inquiry of the statement of payment of interest and dividend income" prepared by the disposal authority, the disposal authority carries out an inquiry of the statement of payment of interest and dividend income in order to verify whether or not the entity is subject to gift tax through financial transactions in the event that it is difficult for the agency to grasp the substance of the OOO on March 3, 2014 (at the time of the on-site investigation, a Stick is attached only to the building entry district and a search at the nearby prices) and the representative of the OOO (OO) is not cooperative in the investigation (at the request of the visit investigation, failing to comply with the request for personal circumstances). In addition, if the list appears to be the statement of payment of interest and dividend income of the OOO foundation, it includes eight financial institutions (OOO, etc.) in the name of the goods (regular deposits, certificates of deposit, etc.), payment date, income amount, withholding

(2) The evidence submitted by the claimant, etc. are as follows.

(A) Examining the register of the building and the land that the claimant filed for the allegation that he/she had held office as an office of the OO, the location of the OO (OO's representative), the OO (the claimant's assertion that he/she is an O's director) and the OO respectively registered the ownership of the above building on November 3, 2013. On May 14, 1973, the 11 person (including the OO's representative as seen above 7) including the above 7 persons) completed the registration of the ownership of the land, respectively. On January 8, 2008, the OO registered the ownership of 1/11 shares (the 2/11 shares total) for the period of 1/11 shares (the 10 shares total) and then on March 19, 2015, the above OO's owner's ownership was transferred from the 2010O bank for 20.20 O.6.20

(B) If the applicant asserts that he/she reported the issue of tax evasion based on the clear factual basis and submitted the OO's registration expenses receipt (it is issued on February 8, 2007, in total with OO members, certified judicial scrivener fees and public charges) and the balance certificate issued on May 31, 2007 (it is issued by OO, in balance), the copy of each document is deemed to have been carried out. In light of the identification number certificate of the OO's Foundation issued by the agency on May 20, 2010, the representative of that corporation is OO and location is written as OO, and when considering the number certificate issued by the agency on February 14, 2012, Article 4 items of taxation (tax payment) issued by OO on February 15, 2012, it is written that the office of education prepared an application for the public interest permit and the list of taxable objects, such as land and buildings issued by OO and the list of taxable objects under its jurisdiction.

(3) In light of the certified transcript of corporate register of OO, six persons (OO: retired on January 24, 2010; OO: Death on February 6, 2010; OO: resignation on January 15, 2007; OO: resignation on January 19, 2010; OO: on January 201: 8, 2010; OOO:

(4) The purpose of the provisions on the payment of rewards to tax evasion information providers under the Framework Act on National Taxes is to: (a) if the tax authority provides information on specific data, such as transaction books that enable the insiders, etc. who are well aware of the fact of tax evasion to verify the details of tax evasion under the realistic circumstances where it is unable to investigate whether all taxpayers are faithfully liable for tax evasion, the tax authority’s position is able to collect the amount of taxes easily omitted without conducting a tax investigation that requires considerable costs and effort; (b) thus, the tax authority would pay rewards to the informants who meet certain requirements as compensation for the reduction of costs (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Du1030, Apr. 14, 2011); and (c) even if the tax authority conducted a tax investigation and collected the amount of taxes to the informants after conducting a tax investigation, if the reported information does not constitute “important data, etc.” under the Framework Act on National Taxes, the informants have failed to obtain the right to claim payment of rewards for tax evasion reporting (see, 2006Du16, 284.

The claimant asserts that the disposition agency conducted a tax investigation on the OO as the reporter on the basis of the data submitted in the report on tax evasion and collected gift tax, etc., so the relevant data constitutes "material data necessary to calculate the amount of tax evasion" under Article 84-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes. However, since the materials submitted by the claimant as the report on tax evasion are the non-profit foundation, which is not a public interest corporation, and the return and payment of gift tax on cash and real estate contributed at or after the time of establishment of the non-profit foundation, and the relevant materials are "a rough scale and time of donation" and it is difficult to recognize that the disposition of the claimant refuses to impose gift tax can be confirmed without a tax investigation on each gift necessary for taxation, donor, donation date, taxable value, etc. (in the case of financial property, the portion of gift should be specified among the amount deposited in the deposit account in the name of donee, and in the case of real estate, it is necessary to verify market price, such as the actual transaction price, etc., other than the published tax price, the claimant's disposition agency cannot impose taxes on the reporter for taxation evasion.

4. Conclusion

This case shall be decided as ordered in accordance with Articles 81 and 65 (1) 2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes because the petition for adjudication has no merit as a result of the review.