과세표준 신고누락한 비영리법인의 이자소득에 대해 경정청구를 허용하지 않는 것은 위헌적 법령이 아님[국승]
early 201J 3414 ( November 25, 2011)
It is not unconstitutional to allow a request for correction for interest income of a non-profit corporation whose report on tax base is omitted.
In the event that a nonprofit corporation selects a non-profit corporation to choose not to report the tax base on interest income, the provision that cannot be included in the tax base by filing a revised return, filing a return after the deadline, or filing a revised return, cannot be deemed to constitute unconstitutional statutes, taking into account the fact that the non-profit corporation seeks legal stability in tax administration by preventing the subsequent return of the tax base on
2012Guhap2482 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing corporate tax, etc.
XX
Head of Suwon Tax Office
July 18, 2012
August 29, 2012
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
On May 27, 2011, the Defendant revoked the disposition rejecting the refund, correction, or rejection of the tax amount to be paid at source of corporate tax in 2010, which was paid to the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the instant disposition
A. The Plaintiff is a non-profit domestic corporation that is established around September 30, 199 and operates churches, schools, hospitals, and welfare projects by sending mission staff to 100 countries.
B. On March 28, 2011, the Plaintiff reported the tax base and tax amount of corporate tax in March 2010, and returned the said interest income amount to 000 won by including it in deductible expenses as reserve funds for proper purpose business at the same time, and received 000 won of the said withheld tax around April 19, 201.
C. Since then, on May 3, 201, the Plaintiff reported the total amount of 000 won of gross interest income (=00 won +000 won) as income amount and added it to deductible expenses as reserve funds for proper purpose business at the same time, and filed a request for correction of tax base and tax amount to additionally refund KRW 000 of the total amount of interest income received from the relevant securities and XX life.
D. Accordingly, on May 27, 2011, the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim for correction on the ground that interest income omitted from the tax base return pursuant to Article 62(1) of the Corporate Tax Act cannot be included in the tax base by filing a revised return, etc. (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
E. The Plaintiff filed an objection to the Tax Tribunal on September 26, 201, seeking the revocation of the instant disposition, but was dismissed on November 25, 2011.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion
(i) the first argument;
In addition, the Plaintiff did not make every year the interest income received from XX securities and XX life, and omitted the interest income received from XX securities and XX life on the wind that is not well aware of whether the said interest income is included in the subject of report due to the replacement of the worker in charge. However, the instant disposition, which did not permit the Plaintiff’s request for correction of the only interest income, due to the omission of one tax base return, is against equity and is unlawful as it excessively infringes on property rights.
(ii) the second argument;
Article 62(1) of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 99 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, which are the Act based on the instant disposition, are unconstitutional statutes that fundamentally block a passage through which a non-profit domestic corporation, who did not make a tax base return on withheld interest income, can be refunded due to a revised return, return or correction after the due date. Thus, the instant disposition is unlawful.
B. Relevant statutes
It is as shown in the attached Form.
C. Determination
1) As to the first argument
The disposition of this case was made pursuant to Article 62(1) of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 99 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and as seen below, as long as each of the above provisions is lawful and effective, the mere fact that the plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case is unlawful merely because it goes against equity or excessively infringes on the property right. Thus, the plaintiff's allegation in this part is without merit.
2) As to the second argument
According to Article 60(1) of the Corporate Tax Act, a domestic corporation liable to pay corporate tax on income for the pertinent business year shall report to the chief of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment within three months from the end of each business year. However, Article 62(1) of the Corporate Tax Act recognizes exceptions by allowing one of the domestic corporations to not file a tax base return on the interest income withheld at source, and Article 99(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides that the interest income not withheld at source shall not be included in the tax base by filing a revised return, filing a revised return after the due date, or filing a revised return, etc.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.