(영문) 대구고법 1988. 10. 12. 선고 87구140 특별부판결 : 상고[갑종근로소득세부과처분취소][하집1988(3.4),552]
Whether the decision of recognition, dividend, and notice of change in the amount of income is a tax imposition disposition (negative)
In recognition, the decision on distribution or the notice of change in the amount of income is merely a preliminary measure or a prior procedure to establish and determine the withholding obligation, and the withholding obligation itself is established at the time of payment or deemed to be a final and conclusive at the time of payment or deemed payment without waiting for the disposition of lower, etc. Therefore, the decision on distribution or notice of change in the amount of income can not be deemed a tax imposition disposition independently subject to a prior trial or an appeal litigation.
Articles 21 and 22 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and Article 142 of the Income Tax Act
Busan Industrial Company
Head of Changwon Tax Office
The instant lawsuit is dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
(1) The defendant's admission and appropriation of 158,085,828 won to the plaintiff for the plaintiff for the non-party last 1982, the admission and appropriation of 21,673,31 won for the non-party last 1983, the admission and appropriation of 18,294,578 won for the non-party last 1983, the admission and allocation of 920,330 won for the non-party last 1983, (2) the notification of changes in the amount of income for the above amount as of August 5, 1986, (3) the notification of changes in the amount of income for the non-party last 1986, the non-party last 197, the non-party last 1986, the non-party last 197, the non-party last 197, the non-party last 196, the non-party last 196, the non-party second 4, the same amount of income for the non-party 1606, the same amount.
The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant.
1. We examine the defendant's main defense of safety.
The defendant revised the tax base of the corporate tax year of 1983. 198. 5 to the plaintiff company's 1, 592, 642, 657 won in total to the non-party 1 who was the shareholder of the plaintiff company at that time, and 15,705, 443 won in total to the non-party 1 who was the shareholder at that time, respectively, and the plaintiff company's 9. 8. 8. 6. 8. 6. 8. 6. 6. 6. 6. 1 to the above non-party 1's income amount to the plaintiff company's 98. 8. 6. 1's income amount to the above non-party 4. 1's income amount to the above non-party 9. 1's income amount to the above non-party 98. 6. 1's income amount to the non-party 1's 98. 1's income amount to the above non-party 1's maximum dividend amount to the plaintiff 98. 1's income amount
Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff sought revocation because the recognition of the instant lawsuit, the determination of dividend, the notification of change in income amount, and the taxation disposition are unreasonable. The Defendant asserts that the instant lawsuit was unlawful because it did not go through the prescribed pre-trial procedure.
First, with respect to whether the lawsuit in this case is legitimate, the so-called recognition contribution, dividend decision, or notice of change in the amount of income is either a preliminary measure or a prior procedure to establish and determine the withholding duty, and the withholding agent shall not wait for the disposition of discharge, etc. and shall be established and finalized at the time of payment or deemed payment. Thus, the recognition contribution, dividend decision, or notice of change in the amount of income cannot be deemed a tax imposition disposition that is the object of a prior trial or appeal litigation, just like the notice of change in the amount of income. Accordingly, the lawsuit in this case seeking the cancellation is unlawful as it concerns that the lawsuit in this case is not subject to appeal litigation.
Then, according to the facts that the instant lawsuit seeking the revocation of the instant taxation disposition had gone through the prescribed pre-trial procedure, the Plaintiff asserted the objection only against the recognition of the instant taxation disposition, the decision on distribution, or the notice on change of income amount, in the request for examination against the National Tax Service or the National Tax Tribunal of the Ministry of Finance and Economy, and there was no mentioning at all about the instant taxation disposition, and the Commissioner of the National Tax Service or the National Tax Tribunal of the Ministry of Finance and Economy did not decide the propriety thereof by converting the instant taxation disposition into the request for examination against the instant taxation disposition after the instant taxation disposition was issued, and therefore, the instant lawsuit seeking the revocation of the instant taxation disposition, which was filed without going through the pre-trial procedure, is also unlawful.
2. If so, the instant lawsuit seeking the recognition of the instant case, the decision on distribution, the notice of change in income amount, and the revocation of taxation disposition is unlawful, and thus, it shall be dismissed, and the costs of lawsuit shall be assessed against the losing party as per Disposition.
Judges Full-time (Presiding Judge) and Full-time (Presiding Judge)