조세포탈의 의도를 가지고 현금 매출액을 고의로 누락하여 부당과소가산세 적용함이 타당함[국승]
National Tax Service Review Income 201-0071 (201.02)
It is reasonable to apply illegal and minor tax liability by intentionally omitting cash sales with the intent to evade tax.
An omission in sales constitutes an unlawful act that significantly makes it considerably difficult to impose taxes by making a computerized account book that intentionally omits the portion of cash sales among the details of the passive set, which serves as the basis for calculating the tax base of global income tax, with a intent to evade tax, rather than underreporting the tax base due to a net mistake or omission in sales.
2011Guhap42055 Global income and revocation of disposition
AAA
head of Sung Dong Tax Office
June 5, 2012
June 28, 2012
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 000 of global income tax for the year 2007 and KRW 000 of global income tax for the year 2008 against the Plaintiff on March 2, 201 shall be revoked.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff operated a dental hospital with the trade name called the GangnambukB department from 000, Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government OB department.
B. On April 1, 2010, the Defendant, at the time of global income tax return for the year 2007 and 2008, filed a correction and notification of KRW 000 of global income tax for the year 2007 and global income tax for the year 2008, as well as KRW 00 of global income tax for the year 200 for the reason that the report was omitted. On the other hand, the Defendant included the omitted cash sales in the income amount, and applied the general under Article 47-3(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 9263, Dec. 26, 2008; hereinafter the same).
C. After that, on December 24, 2010, the auditor General of the National Tax Service reported the tax base to the Defendant on the grounds that the omission of the return on the cash sales was caused by the omission of the tax base, and thus, ordered the Defendant to correct the global income tax by applying an unfair under-reported additional tax, and on March 2, 2011, the Defendant applied an unfair under-reported additional tax pursuant to Article 47-3(2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes to the Plaintiff on March 2, 201, and notified the Plaintiff of the rectification and notification of the global income tax of KRW 00 and KRW 000 for global income tax of 2007
D. On May 25, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an appeal seeking the revocation of the instant disposition with the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed by the Tax Tribunal on September 2, 2011.
[Basis for Recognition] 1, 2, and 1, 1, 1, and 1, 1, and 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion
The Plaintiff’s act of omitting a report on cash sales does not constitute “unfair methods listed in each subparagraph of Article 27(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21316, Feb. 6, 2009; hereinafter the same).” The instant disposition that was based on the premise that the Plaintiff underreported the global income tax standard by improper means is unlawful.
B. Relevant statutes
The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.
C. Facts of recognition
1) The Plaintiff provided medical treatment to each patient, entered the date of medical treatment, the details of medical treatment, and the cost of medical treatment (whether a means of payment is cash or a credit card) in the medical records for each patient (hereinafter referred to as “passage”).
2) The Plaintiff, for global income tax return, electronically entered and kept the details in the manual (hereinafter referred to as “electronic data”) and omitted part of the cost of medical treatment received in cash, not all of the cost of medical treatment indicated in the manual from 2007 to 2008.
3) The Plaintiff’s cash sales, which was omitted while entering the medical fees of the set in the electronic data, are KRW 000 in 2007 and KRW 000 in 2007. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff reported that the sales amount was KRW 00 and KRW 000 in global income tax return in 2007 and 2008.
[Based on Recognition] The entry into Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 2, 3, and 8, and the whole purport of the pleading
D. Determination
Article 47-3(2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 911, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that if there is a tax base for underreporting by improper means, the amount of tax payable shall be added to the amount of tax or deducted from the amount of tax, and "unfair method" means a method prescribed by the Presidential Decree because the taxpayer violates the duty to report all or part of the tax base or tax amount on the basis that the taxpayer intentionally conceals or disguises the tax base or tax amount. Meanwhile, Article 27(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "the above method prescribed by the Presidential Decree" means a method falling under any of the following subparagraphs, and that "the former Enforcement Decree provides for 0-year tax base and other fraudulent bookkeeping, including the preparation of books, and that "the latter is 0-year tax base and other fraudulent means to evade or deduct national taxes," and that "the latter is 20-year tax base and other unlawful means to impose and collect taxes."
3. Conclusion
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit.