Revocation of Disposition Imposing Corporate Tax

The legality of imposition of additional tax on non-submission of payment record on overseas user fee income;

A corporation

Seoul Administrative Court-2017-Gu Partnership-5688 ( December 07, 2017)

The use of copyright in return for importation of goods ("goods") and in return for such importation as described below:

The fee (hereinafter referred to as "the fee of this case") was paid.

B. As to the payment of the instant royalty from 2010 to 2014, the Plaintiff is governed by the Corporate Tax Act.

120-2 The Plaintiff did not submit a statement of payment under Article 120-2, and among the instant usage fees, the law of Hungary

Fees paid to a person shall be non-taxable in accordance with Article 12 of the Korea-Hungary Tax Treaty, but shall be non-taxable;

The plaintiff is the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 12850, Dec. 23, 2014; hereinafter referred to as "Gu").

The corporation did not submit an application for non-taxation and exemption under Article 98-4 of the Corporate Tax Act

(c)

C. Seoul regional tax office’s integration of corporate tax against Plaintiff from March 2015 to March 2015

As a result of the investigation, the Plaintiff is obligated to submit a statement of payment under Article 120-2 of the Corporate Tax Act.

It is not subject to the imposition of additional tax due to failure to submit a statement of payment under Article 76 (7) of the former Corporate Tax Act.

It was confirmed and notified to the defendant.

D. On December 1, 2015, the Defendant issued additional tax under Article 49(1)2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes to the Plaintiff.

Pursuant to Article 76(7) of the former Corporate Tax Act by applying the Do, corporate tax for 2010 business year (not paid)

Additional tax to be submitted; hereinafter the same shall apply) 100,000,000 won, corporate tax of 50,000,000 won, and 2012

50,000,000 corporate tax for the business year, 50,000,000 corporate tax for the business year 2013, and 2014

50,000,000 won were decided and notified respectively (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case").

E. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on February 1, 2016, but on December 12, 2016.

9. was dismissed.

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

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The assertion that the obligation to submit a statement of payment has been fulfilled

A) With respect to the submission of payment statements under Article 120-2(2) of the Corporate Tax Act, the former Income Tax Act

(amended by Act No. 12852, Dec. 23, 2014; hereinafter referred to as the "former Income Tax Act")

Article 164 of the Income Tax Act shall apply mutatis mutandis, and Article 164 (6) of the former Income Tax Act shall apply mutatis mutandis.

As a result, among the list of total tax invoices by seller and seller submitted to the head of the tax office.

Where there are those falling under the statement of payment, the submitted part of the statement of payment shall be submitted.

(2) The Act provides that any person shall be deemed to be a member.

B) However, among the instant royalty sources, the Plaintiff paid to Hungary corporations.

Hanwon (2010 Won, 201 Won, 201 Won, 2012 Won, hereinafter referred to as "the issue usage fee of this case")

In the case, the import tax invoice issued by the customs collector based on the relevant certificate

Payment records through the list of total tax invoices by seller submitted by the Plaintiff at the time of return of value-added tax

Since major entry is confirmed, the duty to submit a statement of payment in respect of the key user fee of this case

It shall be deemed that the performance has been made.

C) Accordingly, the corporate tax for the business year 2010 (not submitted a statement of payment) as shown in the [Attachment].

Amount of KRW 39,747,350 in the disposition of imposition of KRW 100,00,000, and the law of the business year 2011

The imposition of Indian tax amounting to KRW 50,000,000 in full, and the imposition of KRW 50,000,000 in the business year 2012

The part of KRW 30,835,990 should be revoked because it is illegal.

2) The assertion of violation of the principle of trust protection or good faith

With respect to the submission of data related to the performance of withholding by the head of Seodaemun Tax Office in 2008

An application for non-taxation or exemption shall be filed only by submitting a statement of payment or an import declaration certificate with the Offer's et al.

Even if the statement of payment was not submitted, the penalty tax not to be submitted was not imposed, and thereafter 7

No penalty tax imposed on the failure to submit a statement of payment for a year is imposed, the statement of payment or the charge;

Even if an application for tax exemption is not filed, it shall not be subject to additional tax to be submitted on a statement of payment.

the disposition of this case, however, through a tax investigation in 2015, was taken by the defendant.

The plaintiff's property right has been significantly infringed upon by making the above disposition, and the above disposition has been trusted.

in violation of the principle of good faith and good faith.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) The Plaintiff’s customs clearance in the course of importing the instant goods through Seoul Customs and Customs office

Based on the import declaration certificate issued by the head of the customs office, the import tax invoice was issued and added to the customs collector.

With the declaration of the value tax, the list of total tax invoices as listed below was submitted.

2) Meanwhile, the key amount claimed by the Plaintiff is the amount of royalties by individual suppliers as above.

The other party to the payment of the usage fees of this case in the certificate of import declaration among the amounts submitted.

It is calculated by selecting the case in which the above user fee is entered as a Hungary corporation.

3) The Defendant searches export and import clearance data in the computer system to the importer and importer of the goods;

It is possible to confirm the kind of currency, the settlement amount (in original and foreign currency), the declaration price and the taxable value (in original and foreign currency).

(1)1)

1) There is a document stating that the main contents of the import declaration certificate (such as the import declaration number, acceptance date, dutiable value, total quantity, total weight, settlement amount, transaction type, transaction method, etc.) is confirmed through the next-generation import clearance data list of the National Tax Service’s revenue clearance data processing system (Evidence No. 2). However, it is unclear whether the Defendant can verify the matters stated in the tax judgment other than those stated in the said item by inquiring about the computer system.

4) Revenue letters from the National Tax Service’s next generation system through the National Tax Service’s list of customs clearance data

Main contents of a high certificate of completion (import declaration number, date of acceptance, dutiable value, total quantity, total weight, settlement amount, and

There is a statement that the future type, transaction method, and overseas trading office, etc. are confirmed (in fact, the defendant is actual).

In addition to the matters described in paragraph (3) above, the matters described in the written decision of tax appeals shall be reviewed and recorded.

It is unclear whether it can be confirmed).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2 to 5, 9 to 11, Eul evidence 2

each entry of each number, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleading

D. Determination

1) Determination on the assertion that the obligation to submit a statement of payment was fulfilled

A) Article 120-2(1) of the Corporate Tax Act provides that a person who pays domestic source income to a foreign corporation

in particular, it is required to submit a statement of payment to the head of the competent tax office; provided that

income, etc. confirmed by section 98-4 of the former Corporate Tax Act to be eligible for non-taxation or exemption;

income prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs shall not be paid unless such income is paid.

Upon delegation, the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26068, Feb. 3, 2015) was amended by Presidential Decree,

(Ha) Article 162-2(1)6 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act ("Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act") Article 98-4 of the former Corporate Tax Act

under subsection (1) of this section, the duty to submit a statement of payments for domestic source income

Article 98-4 of the former Corporate Tax Act is exempted, and Article 98-4 of the former Corporate Tax Act shall apply to domestic source income

D. A foreign corporation that wishes to obtain non-taxation or exemption shall make an application for non-taxation or exemption.

the Act provides that the Act shall apply.

On the other hand, Article 120-2(2) of the Corporate Tax Act is authorized to submit a statement of payment under paragraph (1).

Article 164 of the former Income Tax Act shall apply mutatis mutandis, and Article 164 (6) of the former Income Tax Act shall apply mutatis mutandis.

Tax for each seller and seller submitted to the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the place of business pursuant to the Value-Added

If there are those falling under a statement of payment among the list of total tax invoices, the payment name for such submitted part;

It provides that a document shall be deemed to have been submitted.

B) The Plaintiff’s statement of payment or non-taxation in relation to the key use fee of the instant case

The facts that the applicant did not submit an application for exemption are as seen earlier, and the facts and the entire pleadings are as follows.

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the purport of this Act, the Plaintiff’s goods of this case

The import declaration certificate and import electronic tax invoice have been issued by the customs collector, and the addition

Even if the list of total tax invoices was submitted upon filing the list of total tax invoices, the former Corporate Tax Act

Article 120-2 (2) of the Income Tax Act and Article 164 (6) of the former Income Tax Act, as to the fees for the instant issues.

Since the payment record cannot be deemed to have been submitted, the defendant's disposition of this case is legitimate, and this is unlawful.

On a different premise, the above assertion by the applicant is without merit.

(1) On a statement of payment, income earners, date of payment of income, year to which income reverts, total amount of payment, and income amount.

The amount, etc. shall be stated, and the income earner, income earner, and income earner under the tax treaty.

The punishment, payment date, amount, tax rate, withholding tax amount, non-taxation and exemption tax amount, etc. are stated.

Meanwhile, tax under Article 120-2(1) of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 162-2(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act

Domestic source income of a foreign corporation subject to corporate tax exemption or exemption under a treaty;

foreign corporation shall apply to the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment for non-taxation or exemption.

only if the income is income, the obligation to submit a statement of payment shall be exempted, which shall be source.

Tax withholding obligation to submit a statement of payment stating the amount of income subject to collection and the person to whom such income belongs;

by imposing to a person without income, the entity and domestic of the foreign corporation to which the income belongs.

The kinds, nature, etc. of source income at the stage of withholding and the application of any tax treaty shall apply.

for the realization of an appropriate right to taxation by ensuring that the person has an opportunity to determine whether or not to impose a tax;

provided that such opportunity may be deemed to have been given by means of Part, non-taxation or exemption;

The purpose is to exempt such obligations. In light of this, Article 120 of the Corporate Tax Act is to exempt such obligations.

2. The location of the place of business pursuant to Paragraph (2) and Article 164 (6) of the former Income Tax Act and the Value-Added Tax Act.

under the statement of payment among the list of total tax invoices by seller submitted to the head of the competent tax office.

(2) In order to hold that there is a statement of payment mentioned above through the list of total tax invoices.

(2) if the principal entry is clearly identified.

② However, the list of individual tax invoices submitted by the Plaintiff at the time of return of value-added tax shall be

The sales office is written by the customs collector, and the actual income earner of the royalty income of this case is accurately known.

the time of issuance of import tax invoices, and the time of issuance of import tax invoices, the Plaintiff actually paid the royalty in this case.

because it does not coincide with the time when the tax authority paid the income and the year to which the income belongs is accurate.

The list of total tax invoices by seller, such as not specified, is alone a major entry in the statement of payment.

subsection (A) does not clearly confirm that the time for submission of the statement of payment has been February of the following year.

Considering that the time of attribution is not specified solely by the entry of the list of total tax invoices, etc.

claim that the payment record does not correspond to the actual income, but the payment record does not pay income.

Considering that the Plaintiff’s submission in the following year by setting aside a separate date, the Plaintiff’s above note

The head of the Chapter is difficult to accept)

③ The Plaintiff’s confirmation of the major entries in the payment statement solely on the list of total tax invoices by seller.

Even if it cannot be stamped, an import declaration certificate submitted by the Plaintiff during the import process of the instant goods

and in such a case, it is possible to confirm it by taking into account together

120-2(2) and Article 164(6) of the former Income Tax Act shall be deemed to have submitted a statement of payment.

of this chapter, however, the taxation requirement or tax reduction under the principle of no taxation without law.

The interpretation of tax laws and regulations should be interpreted in accordance with the legal text, unless there are special circumstances.

c) It should not be permitted to expand or analogically interpret without a reasonable reason.

In addition, Article 120-2(2) of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 120-2(2) of the former Income Tax Act

Not only includes documents in lieu of the statement of payment stated in Article 164(6) but also includes documents.

(d) such documents submitted to the customs collector at the time of the import declaration shall be subject to the declaration of value added tax.

not submitted to the director of the tax office, such documents are considered together with the list of the total tax invoices.

It can not be said that the statement of payment was submitted.

(4) Also, even if the Plaintiff’s assertion is based on the Plaintiff’s assertion, some of the entries therein are paid.

Since it may be written differently from the stated matters in SU, the plaintiff may import as such.

Hungary which is a Hungary legal entity in which the transaction partner on the certificate of completion of report is actually receiving the instant fee;

In light of this, the first selection of the case and the corresponding amount are asserted as the key user fee of this case).

In light of the above, the certificate of import declaration is considered together with the list of total tax invoices and substituted for payment records.

It is difficult to see that materials may be provided, and according to the Plaintiff’s above assertion, tax invoices by seller by seller.

In accordance with the contents of the list of total list, the existence of the Defendant’s import tax invoice and certificate of import declaration; and

Since it is possible to confirm that the defendant submitted other data than the list of total tax invoice by customer.

the submission of a statement of payment, taking into account together, actively ascertaining the part that can be seen as the submission of the statement of payment;

If any part of them can be seen as a necessary entry in the statement of payment, it shall be selected.

of this case, the statement of payment should be deemed to have been submitted, which is submitted.

Article 76(7) of the former Corporate Tax Act providing that a penalty shall be imposed even if the stated matters are unclear;

The provisions of Article 120 (6) of the Enforcement Decree of the former Corporate Tax Act and the easy source of income by the tax authorities;

In addition, it is inconsistent with the purport of imposing obligations to submit a statement of payment, such as enhancing objectivity;

taxpayer who fails to faithfully perform the duty to submit a statement of payment may avoid additional tax;

It is difficult to accept as a result of providing only opportunities.

2) Determination on the assertion of violation of the principle of trust protection or the principle of trust and good faith

A) The origin of the principle of good faith, the principle of trust and good faith, or the respect for non-taxable practices

The rules are consistent with this definition, even if they sacrifice the principle of legality, to protect the taxpayer's trust.

exceptional legal principles that apply only if there are special circumstances that may be recognized as such (or, in the absence of such special circumstances)

Court Decision 2011Du5940 decided Dec. 26, 2013 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Du5940). Reference to tax authorities’ acts

The first taxation authority is required to apply the principle of substantial taxation or the principle of protection of trust.

The public opinion subject to trust should be expressed to the person, and the second tax authority's opinion

The taxpayer shall not be responsible for the taxpayer to believe that the expression is justified, and the third taxpayer shall not be responsible for the taxpayer.

It is necessary to trust the name of the opinion and to act accordingly, and Fourth, the tax authority shall act as such.

The disposition contrary to the statement of opinion may result in a violation of the taxpayer's interest.

C. C. (Supreme Court Decision 2003Da18401 Decided May 26, 2006)

B) According to the purport of the entire pleadings and records, Gap evidence Nos. 12-19 and the whole pleadings and arguments,

The director of the Seodaemun-gu Tax Office shall be provided by the Korea Media Rating Board or the Game Rating Board on June 18, 2008.

Review of the implementation status of withholding taxes on motion picture imports by motion picture makers through classification data of motion picture rating;

agreement related to the import of the film imported to the Plaintiff, details of the payment for import, and evidence

The Director of the Seodaemun-gu Office of Tax Payment demanded to submit documents, withholding statements, and subsequent plaintiffs

(1) The remainder of the imported motion pictures, other than those exempt from withholding under a tax treaty;

With respect to the omission of withholding fees for motion pictures, corporate tax for the business year 2004 (won)

The fact that the plaintiff decided and notified KRW 2,849,930,000,000,000,000

No statement of payment or application for non-taxation or exemption is submitted to the Secretary;

There is no penalty tax imposed on the failure to submit a statement of payment from the head of Seodaemun Tax Office, and the plaintiff is entitled to do so.

Even after the filing of an application for non-taxation or exemption, payment shall be made for seven years without filing the application.

It is recognized that no penalty tax has been imposed due to failure to submit a statement.

However, solely based on the above facts, the Plaintiff’s goods of this case from Hungary corporations

An application for non-taxation and exemption from the royalty of this case that was imported and paid as a price shall not be submitted.

No penalty tax shall be imposed on the failure to submit a statement of payment in respect of the failure to submit the statement of payment.

public opinion statement of the tax authority that it is difficult to deem that there was a public opinion statement, and otherwise evidence to acknowledge it.

There is no o (in addition, in the imposition of corporate tax as above, the case of this case by the plaintiff when the Seodaemun Islands imposes corporate tax as above.

It is required to notify that it will be required to submit a statement of payment of the user fee or not later than

There is no obligation to notify that the additional tax may be imposed.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that there is a justifiable reason for not imposing additional tax

Even if it includes the head of the tax office, foreign corporation's non-taxation

domestic source income shall be subject to corporate tax under the tax treaty if the application for exemption has not been filed;

Even if it is subject to taxation or exemption, a withholding agent’s duty to submit a statement of payment shall not be exempted.

Not (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Du8650, Dec. 1, 2016). The Plaintiff’s royalty and the instant royalty.

In relation to the submission of a statement of payment or an application for non-taxation or exemption, whether the statement of payment is not submitted

The imposition of the mountain duty is merely based on the site or mistake of the statute, and it is merely a mere imposition of the mountain duty.

on the sole basis that no penalty tax has been imposed on the Plaintiff for failure to submit a payment record for seven years;

Since it is not unreasonable for the Plaintiff to grasp the duty to submit a statement of payment, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have considered the duty.

A party that did not submit a statement of payment or an application for non-taxation or exemption from the usage fee of this case

It is difficult to see that there is a reason, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

C) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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

Co., Ltd.

Head of the tax office;

November 17, 2017

December 07, 2017

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On December 1, 2015, the imposition of corporate tax (additional tax not submitted; hereinafter the same shall apply) of KRW 39,747,350 in the amount of corporate tax of KRW 100,00,000 against the Plaintiff for the business year 2010, and the imposition of KRW 50,000,000 in the amount of corporate tax for the business year 2011, and the imposition of KRW 30,835,90 in the amount of corporate tax of KRW 50,00 in the amount of corporate tax of KRW 50,00 in the business year 2012 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation with the objective of domestic and foreign film production and distribution business, domestic and foreign film export and import business, etc., and a foreign corporation, such as Hungary from 2010 to 2014 (hereinafter “the film”).