[행정처분취소][집17(2)행,084]
The provisions of Article 12 (2) 3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act are invalid because there is no legal basis.
The provisions of Article 12 (2) 3 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act (Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 400 of March 11, 66) are invalid because there is no legal basis.
Article 12(2)3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act
Limited Partnership Company Return Corporation
Head of Daegu Central Tax Office
Daegu High Court Decision 66Gu84 delivered on April 2, 1969
All appeals by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.
The costs of an appeal shall be borne by each party.
The plaintiff did not submit a statement of the grounds for appeal within the statutory period. (The records show that the plaintiff received a notice of the acceptance of the appeal on May 4, 1969 and submitted the grounds for appeal on May 26, 1969.) The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed without stating the grounds for appeal in the petition of appeal.
Next, we examine the defendant's grounds for appeal.
If a juristic person fails to report income to the government or if the government deems that the contents of the corporate income return are unfair, it is evident pursuant to the proviso of Article 28(1) of the Corporate Tax Act that the government will investigate and determine the income of the juristic person in question as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. However, if there is any difference between the income amount determined by the government and the income promulgated by the juristic person, the government may immediately consider the difference as the bonus of the representative of the juristic person and treat it as the bonus of the juristic person. Thus, Article 12(2)3 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act that considers the difference as the bonus of the representative of the juristic person in question as the bonus of the juristic person in question is in violation of the principle of no taxation without law (Supreme Court Decision 68Nu9 delivered on June 25, 1968). Thus, the reasoning of the judgment of the court below to this effect is just, and there is no reason to challenge the reasoning of the judgment below that the plaintiff raised a lawsuit against the plaintiff company's income amount as the representative of the juristic person, and there is no reason to revoke the above disposition.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Judge Do-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court