Cho High 201.0495 (Law No. 111.06.29)

Since it is confirmed that income is earned through the partnership in the course of rebuilding implementation, the initial disposition of imposition is legitimate.

In the process of implementing a reconstruction project through a cooperative, it can be known that a substantial income has been obtained in the process of implementing the reconstruction project, and such explanation is also stated in the notice sent by the cooperative to the union members, so even if the Plaintiff did not actually distribute it, it does not affect the

Article 104-7 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

2011Guhap4017 Global Income and Revocation of Disposition

right XX

The Director of Budget Office

March 21, 2012

April 4, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On June 10, 2010, the Defendant revoked the imposition of the global income tax on the Plaintiff and the additional tax on the aggregate of the OOOwon and the additional tax on the global income tax for the year 2008.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 10, 2010, the Defendant corrected and notified the Plaintiff of the KRW 008 global income tax and the KRW 00 additional tax for failure to report, which occurred in 2008, among the OO members of the income amount 2008, distributed by the Plaintiff from XX reconstruction Association (hereinafter “the instant association”).

B. The Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on January 21, 201 upon filing an objection on September 15, 2010, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal on June 29, 201.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 6, Eul evidence 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff did not have any money actually distributed from the instant association, and the Plaintiff’s tax liability for the sales profit, which is the business income of the instant association, is the instant association. Thus, the instant disposition is unlawful as it violates the principle of substantial taxation under Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes

In addition, since the OOO of the revenue reported by the instant association was erroneous, the instant disposition based on such error is unlawful.

B. Determination

1) First of all, the Plaintiff’s assertion that there was no money actually distributed from the instant association is added to the purport of the entire pleadings as stated in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 1-1 through 5, and 2: (1) as a result of the implementation of a reconstruction project of the instant association, part of the proceeds from the general sale of housing was used as new apartment construction funds for the members; (2) as a result of settlement of accounts, the total amount of the proceeds from the settlement of accounts is an OO, and the total amount of income excluding expenses is distributed to 53 members, the amount of each member’s income becomes an OO member; (3) around May 2009, the instant association explained the above fact to its members that each member should make a comprehensive return and payment of income tax pursuant to Article 104-7 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act; and (4) thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff was not aware of the amount of the Plaintiff’s income generated from the instant association’s distribution of 90 members.

2) Next, Article 104-7 (1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 9272 of Dec. 26, 2008) provides that in the case of a reconstruction association which satisfies certain requirements, the provisions of Article 2 of the Corporate Tax Act shall apply to the case where a cooperative and its members are regarded as a joint business proprietor under the Income Tax Act, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 2 of the Corporate Tax Act, but the same shall not apply to the case where a cooperative reports pursuant to the provisions of the Corporate Tax Act. Accordingly, in the case of the instant association, each member is liable to pay taxes directly on the amount of income distributed or to be distributed pursuant to Article 43 (2) of the Income Tax Act as a joint business proprietor under the provisions of the said main sentence. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3) Lastly, as to the assertion that the amount of income reported by the instant association was erroneous, the health team, the content of the Plaintiff’s assertion, and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff cannot be acknowledged. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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