[종합소득세부과처분취소][집30(4)특,183;공1983.3.15.(700)434]
A. Whether income tax can be imposed as global income tax on an income earner where income tax is omitted (affirmative)
(b) The method of allocating and calculating the income amount disposed of as the bonus of the representative if the representative has changed during the business year;
A. The Plaintiff, a representative director of the non-party company, is Class A earned income and paid the income tax pursuant to Article 142 (1) 4 of the Income Tax Act. However, according to Articles 15, 100, 107, and 117 of the same Act, a person with such income shall make a final return on the tax base of global income by aggregating it in the tax base of global income under Article 4 (1) 1 of the same Act, and shall make a final return on the tax base of global income after deducting the withheld tax amount, and the tax base and tax amount shall be determined based on the above final return on global income in principle. Accordingly, even if the Plaintiff’s income is to collect the source tax, if the income is to be reported after adding it to the tax base of global income under the same Act, and if such income is omitted, it may be imposed as global income tax on the Plaintiff recognized as the person to whom the income belongs.
(b) The decision of the court below that the income amount to be disposed of as the bonus of the representative of a juristic person shall be deemed to have accrued during the whole period of the business year and that the amount calculated in proportion to the changed representative's number of days of service
(a) Article 142 of the Income Tax Act;
Supreme Court Decision 80Nu4 delivered on April 22, 1980, 79Nu444 delivered on June 10, 1980, Supreme Court en banc Decision 79Nu347 delivered on September 22, 1981, 80Nu268 delivered on December 28, 1982
[Judgment of the court below]
The Director of Gangnam District Office
Seoul High Court Decision 81 Gu1 delivered on March 30, 1982
All appeals are dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by each appellant.
(1) We examine the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney.
According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, since the plaintiff worked as the representative of the non-party stock company between March 3, 197 and August 29 of the same year, and the defendant, on April 11, 1980, determined the tax base amount for corporate tax on business income of the non-party company 197 as 21,527,69 won again, and determined the amount as 22,606,164 won as 22,60,164 won as 222,64 won, and the above amount was disposed of as bonus for the representative pursuant to Article 94 (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended before December 31, 1980), the court below determined that the income tax base of the non-party 1 was to be disposed of as 17,606,164 won based on the calculation period of the above income tax base for the non-party 2's global income tax base, and there is no illegality in the determination of the above 1400 won.
(2) The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.
In light of the records, the court below is just in holding that the non-party company was closed at the end of September 197 without sufficient evidence to acknowledge the defendant's assertion, and the income amount to be disposed of as the bonus of the representative of this case shall be deemed to have accrued during the whole period of the business year, and the amount calculated according to the number of days of the changed representative's tenure of office shall be deemed to have accrued during the changed representative's tenure of office, and there is no error of law
Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Justices Kim Jung-soo (Presiding Justice) and Lee Jong-young's Lee Jong-young