Seocho 2012west 1530 (No. 28, 2012)

If corporate tax is adjusted by the court's recommendation for adjustment, it constitutes the grounds for ex post facto request for correction.

Considering the fact that the purchase amount of false purchase tax invoice is excluded from deductible expenses, is disposed of as bonus, and the corporate tax reduction is corrected following the recommendation for adjustment, the income disposition amount corresponding to the revoked tax reduction has lost its effect, and it falls under Article 45-2 (2) 5 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 25-2 (2) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

2012Guhap37074 Revocation of Disposition rejecting to correct dextrins

New AAAA

The director of the tax office.

July 5, 2013

July 19, 2013

1. The Defendant’s rejection of each correction of global income tax of KRW 000 (including additional tax) and global income tax of KRW 000 (including additional tax) in 2006, which the Plaintiff on February 21, 2012, shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff's status

BB oil Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “B”) purchased oil mainly used in a ship from oil refining or agency, supplied it to a maritime construction company or a shipping company, and closed on April 25, 2007. The Plaintiff is the actual representative of BB.

(b) Disposition, etc. of imposing corporate tax on BB;

(1) On March 3, 2008, the head of Pyeongtaek District Tax Office received false purchase tax invoices of KRW 000 for the business year 2004, KRW 000 for the business year 2005, KRW 000 for the business year 2006, and KRW 000 for the business year 2007, for the reason that the purchase amount of false purchase tax invoices is not deductible expenses, and KRW 000 for the business year 2004, corporate tax of KRW 000 for the business year 2005, and KRW 00 for the corporate tax of KRW 00 for the business year 2006 (including additional tax) and KRW 00 for the business year 207 (including additional tax).

(2) On March 4, 2008, the director of the Central Regional Tax Office notified the Plaintiff of the change in income amount in the business year 2005, 000 won, and 000 won in the business year 2006, and 2007 business year 2007.

(3) On June 4, 2008, theO filed an appeal against the assessment disposition of corporate tax and the notice of change in income amount for the business year from 2004 to 2007. On December 31, 2008, the Tax Tribunal rendered on December 31, 2008, that the assessment disposition of corporate tax and the notice of change in income amount for the business year from 2004, the tax base and amount of the notice of change in corporate tax and the notice of change in income amount for the business year from

(c) Lawsuit seeking revocation, such as imposition of corporate tax by B;

(1) On March 26, 2009, BB filed a lawsuit seeking cancellation of the instant disposition of corporate tax for the business year 2006, and for the business year 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition of corporate tax”), and for the notification of change in the amount of income (hereinafter referred to as “the notification of change in the amount of income”), and was sentenced to dismissal on January 28, 2010. BB rejected the lawsuit seeking cancellation of the instant disposition of corporate tax. In Seoul High Court (2010Nu6689) on November 24, 2010, the Seoul High Court (2010.B was sentenced to the revocation of the instant disposition of corporate tax, and the head of Pyeongtaek District Tax Office filed an appeal on the instant disposition of corporate tax. BB was 201,000,000,0000 won and 207,000 won and 201,000 won were not confirmed as necessary expenses for each business year.

D. Disposition imposing global income tax on the Plaintiff

"(1) On October 1, 2008, the Defendant corrected and notified the Plaintiff of the global income tax amount of KRW 000 (including additional tax) in 2006 and global income tax of KRW 000 (including additional tax) in 2007. On February 3, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a request for the reduction or correction of the global income tax of KRW 000 (including additional tax) in 2006 and KRW 000 (including additional tax) in 2007, on the grounds that the disposition of global income tax was imposed in accordance with the notice of change in the amount of income, and that the disposition of global income tax was revoked, which served as the basis for the notification of change in the amount of income, and that the disposition of global income tax was subject to the subsequent request for correction. On February 21, 2012, the Defendant filed a request for the correction and correction of the amount of income tax of KRW 200 (including additional tax) with the Plaintiff on February 21, 2012>

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence l through 17 (including household numbers), Eul evidence 1, 4, and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The transaction or act on which the instant disposition was based is the notification of the change in the income amount of the instant case, and the reduced portion of the disposition imposing the corporate tax of the instant case is responding to the income amount, and the disposition with the reduced portion of the corporate tax constitutes grounds for subsequent

(2) The recommendation constitutes a settlement or other act having a unified effect with the consent of the tax authority, and the transaction or act that served as the basis of the disposition of the instant case was determined differently by the consent of the mediation recommendation, and thus constitutes the grounds for later filing a request for correction.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

(1) The grounds for the subsequent request for correction are applicable

(1) The provisions of Article 20 (1) 1 (c) of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 891 of March 21, 2008) provide for the tax base and calculation of earnings; (2) the amount of earnings that the tax authority received before the inclusion of earnings or calculation of earnings is deemed to be reverted to the officer or employee; and (3) the amount of income that the tax authority received before the inclusion of earnings or calculation of earnings is not included in deductible expenses; and (4) the amount of income that the tax authority received before the inclusion of earnings or calculation of earnings is not included in deductible expenses pursuant to Article 20 (2) 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17065, Jul. 27, 2006; 201; 3) the amount of income that the tax authority received before the inclusion of earnings or calculation of earnings is deemed to be included in deductible expenses; and (5) the amount of income that the tax authority imposed upon the inclusion of earnings or calculation of earnings is deemed to be included in deductible expenses.

(B) Considering the fact that back to the instant case, health class, BB’s 206 business year, and 2007 business year, false purchase tax invoice was disposed of as bonus, income was disposed of as bonus, and corporate tax was imposed on March 3, 2008, and the corporate tax was corrected upon the recommendation for adjustment, the amount of income corresponding to the amount of non-deductible tax revoked following the revision of corporate tax was invalidated, and the amount of income corresponding to the amount of non-deductible tax revoked upon the adjustment of corporate tax was also invalidated, it constitutes grounds for later filing a request for correction pursuant to Article 45-2(2)5 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 25-2 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (a recommendation for adjustment does not have the same effect as the Defendant’s assertion, but the correction following the recommendation for adjustment constitutes a

(a) a reasonable amount of tax to be corrected;

According to the above facts, according to the reduction decision of corporate tax for the business year 2006, the income amount was changed to 000 won, and the income amount was changed to 0000 won according to the reduction decision of corporate tax for the business year 2007. Accordingly, when calculating the comprehensive income tax for 2006 and 2007, it is as listed in Table 1, and Table 2.

Table 1: Calculation details of global income tax in 2006

(Omission)

Table 2. Calculation Statement of global income tax in 2007

(Omission)

(B) Additional tax on improper non-declaration

In 207, the defendant asserts that Article 47-3 (2) 1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 8830 of Dec. 31, 2007) and Article 27 (2) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Tong (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22038 of Feb. 18, 2010) should be applied with respect to global income tax, and that Article 47-3 (2) 3 of the former Enforcement Decree should be applied with respect to the application of unfair non-declaration of tax (40%).However, in imposing global income tax in 207, the defendant did not impose unfair non-declaration of tax (No. 5-2), and (2) the plaintiff was subject to comprehensive taxation for the reason that it is unclear that the representative of the corporation did not own the false purchase tax invoice, and that it is difficult to view that the plaintiff was subject to tax evasion under the 20th Enforcement Decree of the global income tax without tax return, and that it was difficult to apply with respect to the plaintiff's tax evasion of tax return.

(C) Scope of revocation

Since the Plaintiff seeks revocation of the amount less than the global income tax calculated in the purport of the claim, the Plaintiff’s revocation of the instant disposition is to the extent sought by the Plaintiff.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.