Additional Tax on Non-performance of Land Trading Profit Preliminary Return

부동산매매업자가 토지등매매차익예정신고 이후 확정신고를 함으로써 예정신고 매매차익과 세액이 확정신고분에 흡수되어 소멸한다고 하더라도, 기와에 있었던 토지등매매차익예정신고 납부의무 불이행의 효과나 이미 발생한 가산세의 납부의무가 소멸하는 것은 아님

Article 69 of the Income Tax Act

Revocation of revocation of rejection of rectification of global income tax, 2019Guhap51529 of the Seoul Administrative Court

ARTICLE *

○ Head of tax office

2019.24

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition rejecting to rectify the global income tax imposed on the Plaintiff on September 29, 2016 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From July 1, 2007, the Plaintiff was a personal entrepreneur who is engaged in real estate sales business with the trade name of "Magire," ** Si** Gu** Dong, and sold 635 rooms among them (hereinafter "the instant real estate") in February and March 2015.

B. The Plaintiff failed to comply with the scheduled return and payment of profit margin on land, etc. by April 30, 2015 and May 31, 2015 (hereinafter “the scheduled return date of this case”) from the date two months have elapsed from the end of the month to which the date of sale and purchase of the instant real estate belongs, upon filing a return after August 31, 2015 (hereinafter “after the due date”), and filed a return after August 31, 2015 (hereinafter “after the due date”), the Plaintiff returned and paid the business income tax of KRW 4,342,964,854, including the total amount of non-reported additional taxes and non-paid additional taxes (hereinafter “the instant additional tax”).

C. On June 30, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a final return on the tax base of global income tax for the year 2015. Meanwhile, on July 31, 2016, as long as the Plaintiff fulfilled the final return and payment of global income tax for the year 2015, the instant additional tax related to the scheduled return on profit from land, etc. was erroneously or erroneously paid, and thus, filed a request for correction to refund the said amount. However, on September 29, 2016, the Defendant rejected the said request for correction against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. On November 17, 2016, the Plaintiff appealed to the instant disposition and filed a request for examination with the Board of Audit and Inspection. On October 12, 2018, the Board of Audit and Inspection dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for examination.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 1 and Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The instant disposition is unlawful on the grounds as indicated below by the Plaintiff’s assertion.

1) Illegal due to final tax return and payment of global income tax

The Plaintiff did not report and pay profit margin from the transfer of the instant real estate during the instant preliminary return period, but returned and paid comprehensive income tax for the year 2015, including the amount from the transfer of the instant real estate. Moreover, the preliminary return of profit margin cannot be determined differently from other preliminary returns. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff did not report profit margin from the transfer of the instant real estate or did not pay such profit margin.

2) Illegality due to non-existence of a tax payment notice

Although the Plaintiff filed and paid the business income tax including the instant penalty tax, the Defendant did not pay the penalty tax until the filing of a request for correction. Therefore, there is an error in the procedure related to the collection of the instant penalty tax.

(b) Attached Form of the relevant statutes;

same as the entry.

C. Determination

1) Determination on final return and payment of global income tax

A) The main sentence of Article 47-2(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 14382, Dec. 20, 2016; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the main sentence of Article 47-2(1) provide that where a taxpayer fails to file a return of tax base (including preliminary return and interim return, but excluding a return under the Education Tax Act, the Act on Special Rural Development Tax and the Comprehensive Real Estate Holding Tax Act) under tax-related Acts by the statutory deadline for filing a return, an amount equivalent to 20/100 of the amount of tax to be paid by such return (excluding additional taxes under this Act, tax-related Acts, and the interest to be paid in addition under the tax-related Acts; hereinafter the same shall apply) shall be the additional tax; the main sentence of Article 47-4(1) provides that "the tax amount shall be paid by the deadline for filing a return under tax-related Acts; the same shall apply to cases where a taxpayer fails to pay the amount of tax to be paid by the deadline for filing under tax-related Acts;

나) 위와 같은 규정에다가 위 인정사실 및 변론 전체의 취지에 비추어 인정되는다음과 같은 사정 즉, ① 가산세는 과세권의 행사와 조세채권의 실현을 용이하게 하기위하여 세법에 규정된 의무를 정당한 이유 없이 위반한 납세자에게 부과하는 일종의행정상 제재이므로, 징수절차의 편의상 당해 세법이 정하는 국세의 세목으로 하여 그세법에 의하여 산출한 본세의 세액에 가산하여 함께 징수하는 것일 뿐, 세법이 정하는바에 의하여 성립 확정되는 국세와 그 본질에서 차이가 있는 점(대법원 2005. 9. 30.선고 2004두2356 판결 등 참조), ② 구 소득세법이 부동산매매업자에 대하여 토지등매매차익예정신고와 그에 대한 납부를 매매일이 속하는 달의 말일부터 2개월이 되는날까지 하도록 규정하고 있는 것은 조세채권을 조기에 확보하고자 하는 취지로 보이는점(구 소득세법 제69조 참조), ③ 구 국세기본법은 무신고가산세의 신고를 국세의 과세표준 신고라고 규정하면서 예정신고 및 중간신고를 포함한다고 규정하고 있고(제47조의2 제1항 참조), 납부불성실가산세의 납부에 있어서도 국세의 납부라고 규정하면서중간예납・예정신고납부・중간신고납부를 포함한다고 규정하고 있어 매매차익예정신고・납부는 국세의 과세표준 신고 및 국세의 납부에 해당하는 점, ④ 국세기본법이 2011. 12.31. 법률 제11124호로 개정되기 전에는 무신고가산세의 신고에 관하여 '납세자가 법정신고기한까지 세법에 따른 과세표준신고서를 제출하지 아니한 경우'로 규정하고 있었고, 납부불성실가산세의 납부에 관하여는 '납세자가 세법에 따른 납부기한까지 국세를납부하지 아니한 경우'로 규정하고 있었다가 국세기본법이 개정되면서 신고에 예정신고 등을 포함하고, 납부에 예정신고납부 등을 포함하는 것으로 개정되었으며, 그와 같은 개정규정은 2012. 1. 1. 이후 최초로 개시하는 과세기간 분부터 적용된 점, ⑤ 부동산매매업자가 토지 등 매매차익예정신고・납부 이후 그와 다른 내용의 종합소득세과세표준 확정신고를 함으로써 종전에 잠정적으로 정해진 매매차익과 세액이 종합소득세과세표준 확정신고에 따라 확정된 과세표준과 세액에 흡수되어 소멸한다고 하더라도, 기왕에 있었던 토지 등 매매차익예정신고・납부의무 불이행의 효과나 이미 발생한 가산세의 납부의무가 소멸한다고 보기도 어려운 점 등에 비추어 보면, 원고의 이 부분 주장은 이유 없다.

2) Determination as to duty payment notice

A) Article 45-3(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes provides that a person who fails to file a tax base return by the statutory due date of return may file a tax base return by the due date pursuant to the tax-related Acts (including additional taxes under this Act and tax-related Acts; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the head of the competent tax office may file a tax base return by the due date until the due date is notified pursuant to the tax-related Acts. Paragraph (2) provides that a person who files a tax return after the due date of tax return pursuant to the tax-related Acts shall pay the tax amount. Paragraph (3) provides that where a return after the due date of tax return is filed pursuant to paragraph (1), the head of the competent tax office shall determine the tax base and tax amount of the relevant national tax within three months from the due date of the filing of the tax-related Acts: Provided, That where

B) The above provisions are as follows: ① Income tax is determined in principle at the time of filing a return on the tax base and amount of the pertinent national tax to the Government; ② it is determined at the time of determining the tax base and amount of the income tax [see Article 22(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 10-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Presidential Decree No. 29534, Feb. 12, 2019; hereinafter the same shall apply]; ② The taxpayer’s tax return and payment are made after stating the taxable period, tax items, amount of tax, personal information, etc.; ② the collection of national tax is made by issuing a tax notice stating the tax period, tax items, basis for calculation, etc. to the taxpayer (see Articles 8 and 9 of the National Tax Collection Act); ③ Accordingly, if the taxpayer’s tax return and payment are made pursuant to the taxpayer’s tax return, it is unnecessary to issue a tax payment notice; ④ In this case, the Plaintiff reported and paid the instant additional tax when filing the tax return after the tax return after the deadline (see Article 45(1).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.