[종합소득세부과처분취소][공2002.2.15.(148),401]
[1] In a case where a withholding tax on Class A earned income is omitted from a resident who was exempted from the duty to make the final return on the tax base due to only earned income, whether such income is subject to global income tax (affirmative)
[2] Whether Article 21 (1) 1 (a) of the former Income Tax Act violates the principle of clarity of taxation requirements under the principle of no taxation without law (negative)
[1] If only a resident who has earned income under Article 101 (1) 1 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4803 of Dec. 22, 1994) provides that only a resident who has earned income shall not make a final return on the tax base of the corresponding income shall add his/her earned income to his/her global income pursuant to Articles 4 (1) and 15 of the former Income Tax Act, and only a resident who is confirmed to have earned income under Article 165 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14467 of Dec. 31, 1994) shall make a written investigation into the tax base and tax amount by a written report, and it is improper to exclude him/her from the scope of liability to pay income tax at the end of the pertinent year on the income already paid, even if the final return on the tax base of the global income is omitted in light of the basic purport of imposing the global income tax, etc. subject to withholding.
[2] Article 21 (1) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4803 of Dec. 22, 1994) provides that earned income shall be the following income generated in the pertinent year, and subparagraph 1 (a) provides that "wages, salary, remuneration, annual allowance, wage, bonus, allowance, and other benefits of a similar nature that are received due to the provision of labor" in subparagraph 1 (a) of the above provision provides that "the salary, salary, remuneration, annual allowance, wage, bonus, and other allowances of a similar nature that are received due to the provision of labor" shall be a salary, salary, remuneration, annual allowance, wage, bonus, and other allowances similar to those received due to the provision of labor, the meaning of which is clear, and thus, it shall not be deemed that it violates the principle of clarity
[1] Articles 4(1), 15(1)1 (see current Article 14), and 101(1)1 (see current Article 73(1)1) of the former Income Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 4803, Dec. 22, 1994); Article 165 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 14467, Dec. 31, 1994); Article 21(1)1 (a) (see current Article 20(1)) of the former Income Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 4803, Dec. 22, 1994); Article 59 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea
[1] Supreme Court en banc Decision 79Nu347 delivered on September 2, 1981 (Gong1981, 14384) Supreme Court Decision 89Nu4895 delivered on March 27, 1990 (Gong1990, 1003) Supreme Court Decision 91Nu9527 delivered on March 13, 1992 (Gong1992, 1334), Supreme Court Decision 92Nu4048 delivered on July 14, 1992 (Gong192, 2456) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2000Da31 delivered on September 14, 201
Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Ba-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Head of North Busan District Tax Office
Busan High Court Decision 2000Nu826 delivered on November 17, 2000
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1
Article 4(1) and 15 of the former Income Tax Act provides that a resident who only has earned income under Article 101(1)1 of the former Income Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 4803, Dec. 22, 1994; hereinafter the same shall apply) shall be exempt from filing a final return on the tax base of such income, even if Article 4(1) and 15 of the former Income Tax Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 1467, Dec. 31, 1994; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that a resident who has earned income under Article 101(1)1 of the former Income Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 4803, Dec. 22, 1994; hereinafter the same shall apply) is exempt from filing a final return on the tax base of such income, and that only the amount of such global income subject to withholding shall be deemed to have been exempted from filing a final return on the tax base and tax base of such global income.
The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law as to income tax decision as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.
2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2
Upon examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below is just in holding that 71,105,656 won in the amount omitted from sale in apartment units minus 180,000,000 won in additional construction costs and value-added tax of 3,538,228 won in the sales of the apartment of this case and 71,05,656 won in the amount omitted from sale in apartment units and 3,538,228 won in value-added tax due to the sales of the apartment of this case were actually reverted to the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff obtained earned income under Article 21 (1) 1 (a) of the former Income Tax
3. As to the third ground for appeal
Article 21 (1) of the former Income Tax Act provides that earned income shall be the income falling under any of the following subparagraphs generated during the pertinent year, and subparagraph 1 (a) of the same Article provides that "wages, salary, remuneration, annual allowance, wage, bonus, bonus, allowance, and other benefits of a similar nature similar thereto that are received due to the provision of labor." The term "wages of a similar nature similar thereto" in the above provision means salary, salary, remuneration, annual allowance, wage, bonus, bonus, and allowance that are received due to the provision of labor, and its meaning is clear, and thus it cannot be deemed that it violates the principle of clarity of taxation requirements under the no taxation without law (see Supreme Court Order 200Hun-Ga31, Sept. 14, 201).
The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no violation of the Constitution as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.
4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)