[취득세등부과처분취소청구사건][하집1990(2),526]
Whether there is a right to apply for a refund of the tax amount paid in advance by filing a revised return of tax base for a taxpayer liable to pay local tax, such as acquisition tax and registration tax.
As for the local tax by voluntary declaration and payment such as acquisition tax and registration tax, there is no statutory due date of return such as national tax, by applying mutatis mutandis Article 45(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, it cannot be deemed that a taxpayer of acquisition tax and registration tax has the right to apply for the refund of the tax amount already returned and paid by filing a revised return of tax base. Even if a taxpayer is a person liable for tax payment by the method of tax return and payment, the right to apply for the correction of the amount of tax already reported and paid shall not be acknowledged unless otherwise expressly provided for in the tax-related Acts.
Article 45 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 65 of the Local Tax Act
Clean Unemployment Corporation
The head of Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The defendant's rejection disposition against the plaintiff on January 24, 1989 against the plaintiff 7,656,660 won from time to time, the registration tax of 11,485,00 won from December 1, 1988, and the defense tax of 2,296,980 won from February 24, 1989 is revoked.
The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
. On the ground that the above provisions were applied to Gap evidence 1-1 to 6 (each acquisition tax, registration tax and defense receipt), Gap evidence 2-1 to 6 (each objection), Gap evidence 4-1 to 6, Gap evidence 6-1, 2-1, 7-1, 2-1, and 2-1 of the above provisions of the Local Tax Act, the plaintiff's total amount of 9-1 to 3-1 of the above provisions of the above provision of 9-1 to 3-1 of the above provision of 9-1 of the above provision of the above provision of 9-1 to 3-1 of the above provision of 9-1 of the above provision of the Act; the plaintiff's total amount of 9-2 of the above provision of 9-1 to 3-1 of the above provision of 9-1 of the above provision of the Act; and the plaintiff's remaining amount of 9-2 of the above provision of 9-1 to 30-1 of the above provision of the Act.
(1) The plaintiff (1) paid acquisition tax and registration tax as above by mistake notwithstanding the fact that each of the above buildings acquired by the plaintiff was exempt from acquisition tax and registration tax pursuant to the provisions of Articles 109 (1) and 127 of the Local Tax Act, but the plaintiff can make a revised return of tax base on the ground that the above acquisition tax and registration tax are exempt from taxation pursuant to the legal principles of Article 45 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, which are applicable mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 65 of the Local Tax Act. Accordingly, the defendant is obligated to correct the above revised return if there is any matter to be notified of the result of investigation within the statutory deadline pursuant to Article 45 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes. Since the local tax or its Enforcement Decree did not stipulate that the above buildings were exempt from acquisition tax and the above revised return of tax base for the plaintiff's non-taxable building, which is the procedure provisions of Article 45 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the plaintiff's rejection of the above revised return of acquisition tax and the above revised tax base for the plaintiff's rejection.
Article 45(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 25(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 10-2 subparag. 1 of the same Act provides that if a taxpayer who is liable to pay national taxes by filing a return of tax base and an error are found within the statutory deadline for filing a return, the taxpayer shall be given an opportunity to correct such omission or error and the taxpayer shall be notified of the tax base and the tax amount to increase the amount of the initial return within the statutory deadline for filing a return, and if the taxpayer fails to file an application for tax return within the statutory deadline for filing a return, the tax office shall investigate the result of the investigation, and notify the taxpayer of the revised return within the statutory deadline for filing the tax base and the registration tax amount, the taxpayer shall not be deemed to have filed an appeal by deeming that the pertinent tax office refuses to impose the acquisition tax and the registration tax under the above provision, and shall not be deemed to have been filed within the statutory deadline for filing an appeal, other than the imposition and collection of the local tax under Article 65 of the Local Tax Act.
Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case, which is based on the premise that there is a rejection disposition subject to appeal litigation, shall be dismissed, and the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff who has lost, and it is so decided as per Disposition.
Judges Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Judge)