종합소득세 경정거부처분 취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff is the representative director of a corporation B (hereinafter “B”) established for the purpose of shipping arrangement business, shipping brokerage business, etc.
B. As a result of the consolidated investigation of corporate tax against B, the head of the Guro Tax Office found that B omitted the brokerage commission incurred from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2012 and the brokerage receipt of KRW 4,131,00,000,00 from sales. On June 10, 2014, the head of the Guro Tax Office disposed of KRW 309,478,136, and KRW 701,149,763 for the year 2007 as bonus for the Plaintiff and notified the changes in the amount of income to B.
C. B, on July 10, 2014, withheld taxing KRW 97,968,510 as earned income tax for the year 2006, and KRW 228,827,695 as earned income tax for the year 2007, and paid it. The Plaintiff paid the comprehensive income tax for the year 2006 and 2007 according to the notice of change in income amount.
On July 15, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a request for reduction or correction of the above global income tax on the ground that the exclusion period has expired, and the Defendant rejected it on July 30, 2015.
(hereinafter “instant disposition”) e.
On October 23, 2015, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal. However, the Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal on April 28, 2016.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, each entry of Gap's 1 through 7, the purport of whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is that the factual relations and legal relations with respect to global income tax for 2006 and 2007, which were governed by the latter part of Article 26-2(1)1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 11124, Dec. 31, 201; hereinafter the same shall apply) (hereinafter “instant provisions”) were already completed, and thus, the key provisions are not allowed as being subject to retroactive legislation.
Even if it is a non-petition retroactive legislation, the purpose of public interest is to achieve the issue regulation is the trust of the plaintiff.