beta
Main Issues
Whether the proviso of Article 170(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10977 of Dec. 31, 1982) is valid (negative)
Summary of Judgment
The proviso of Article 170 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10977 of Dec. 31, 1982) is null and void as a provision that expands taxation requirements provided for in the parent law without any ground for delegation under the former Income Tax Act as well as Article 23 (4) and Article 45 (1) 1 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3576 of Dec. 21, 1982).
[Reference Provisions]
Article 170 (1) proviso of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1077 of Dec. 31, 1982), Article 23 (4) and Article 45 (1) 1 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3576 of Dec. 21, 1982)
Reference Cases
Supreme Court Decision 82Nu221 delivered on November 23, 1982, 83Nu662 delivered on February 28, 1984, 84Nu69 delivered on April 24, 1984 (Dong)
Plaintiff-Appellee
Plaintiff 1 and one other
Defendant-Appellant
The director of the tax office.
Judgment of the lower court
Seoul High Court Decision 83Gu288 delivered on January 17, 1984
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
The proviso of Article 170 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 10977 of Dec. 31, 1982) is not consistent with the provisions of Articles 23 (4) and 45 (1) 1 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by the Act No. 3576 of Dec. 21, 1982), and it is null and void as a provision expanding taxation requirements under the parent law without any ground for delegation under the former Income Tax Act (refer to the Supreme Court Decision No. 82Nu221 of Nov. 23, 1982 and the Supreme Court Decision No. 83Nu662 of Feb. 28, 1984). Thus, the judgment of the court below that the proviso of Article 170 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act is null and void is justified.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the 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 Jeong Tae-tae (Presiding Justice)