The early appellate court 2014 Deputy 5122

A person who has any earned income received from two or more persons shall make a final return on the tax base of the global income.

A person who has wage and salary income received from two or more persons or a certain business income withheld under the Income Tax Act shall make a final return on the tax base of global income, and a person who has no amount of tax to make a final return and payment due to year-end

Article 70 of the Income Tax Act, exceptions to final return on global income tax base under Article 73 of the Income Tax Act.

2015Guhap1459 Revocation of disposition of revocation of income tax

NewA

BB Director of the Tax Office

December 11, 2015

February 5, 2016

1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the Defendant’s claim for revocation of imposition of KRW 5,485,2 XX and KRW 166,408 against the Plaintiff on March 1, 2015 is dismissed in entirety.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of global income tax 16,02,3 XX6,00 on May 2014 against the Plaintiff; imposition of global income tax 11,325,40 for the year X. 2013; imposition of global income tax 11,325,04; imposition of global income tax for the year 2013 on August 2014; imposition of global income tax 5,485,208 for the year X. 2008; and revocation of imposition of global income tax 16,40,00 won for the year 2008 [the Plaintiff’s recommendation for correction, despite the recommendation for correction, claim is sought, 33,387,9,00 won for the Plaintiff; and the Plaintiff’s specific tax base amount for global income tax 5,485,6,023,30,000 won for the year 20,000,000 won for each of the above imposition of global income tax 36,0305,01.

1. Details of the disposition;

(a) Imposition of global income tax for the year 2008;

1) On the ground that the Plaintiff did not file a final return on the global income tax base for the amount of 46,902, and 1 XX won generated from more than two other than the B convalescent during the 2008 taxable period, the head of the AAA Tax Office (the current BA Tax Office) served a notice of imposition of global income tax of 3,821,00 won (including additional tax for 688,265 won + additional tax for 191,00 won for 208) on January 2, 2010, but the notice of tax payment was returned, and the notice of tax payment was again served by public notice around January 20, 2010.

2) The Plaintiff filed a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal on August 2, 2014 through an objection on July 20, 2014. On January 1, 2015, the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to revoke the imposition of global income tax amounting to 3,821,00 won for the year 208 on the ground that the disposition of global income tax imposition as stated in paragraph (1) above was incomplete because the requirements for service by public notice were not satisfied.

(3) The Defendant, upon the decision of the pertinent Tax Tribunal, revoked the imposition of global income tax of 3,821,00 won for the year 2008 as above, and on March 2015, notified the Plaintiff of the imposition of global income tax of 5,485,20 won for the year 2008 (including additional tax of 688,265 won + additional tax of 1,85,65,00 won for additional additional tax of 68,265), and notified the Plaintiff of the imposition of global income tax of 16,40 won for the year 208 (hereinafter referred to as “the imposition of global income tax for the year 208”), and notified the imposition of global income tax of 16,40 won for the year 208 (hereinafter referred to as “the imposition of local income tax for the year 208”).

1) On May 2014, the Defendant imposed and notified the Plaintiff on May 1, 2014, the global income tax of KRW 16,022, and KRW 3,779,10 (including the additional tax on non-declaration and additional tax on non-payment for non-payment) for non-payment, and KRW 16,02, and KRW 3,00 (including KRW 3,779,10) for non-payment for non-payment) for the reason that the Plaintiff did not file a final return on the global income tax amount of KRW 74,945,850 for business income and KRW 23,436,00 for business income (DD hospital) generated from two or more persons, including CCC Medical Foundation, etc

2) On May 2, 2014, the Defendant issued a final return on the tax base of global income (tax amount reported) on May 2, 2014, on the Plaintiff’s earned income amount of 129,165,00 won from more than two persons, including EEE Hospital, during the 2013 taxable period, but did not pay the remainder of tax amount of 16,943,8 XX, excluding the withheld tax amount of 16,98,00,000 won. On August 1, 2014, the Defendant issued a non-payment and notification of global income tax amount of 11,325,44,00 won (including additional paid tax amount of 216,622 won) for global income tax for 2013 (hereinafter “instant disposition of imposition of global income tax”).

3) On July 2014, the Plaintiff filed a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal on October 1, 2014 on global income tax for the global income tax for the year X 2012, which reverts to X 2013, following each objection, on August 1, 2014. On March 1, 2015, the claim for global income tax for the global income tax was dismissed, and the claim for global income tax for the year 2013 was dismissed on the ground that it was merely a procedure to collect the finalized tax by filing the return.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2, 3, and 5, entry of Eul evidence 1 to 12 (including each number), the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main defense, etc.

A. Whether the revocation of imposition of local income tax for the year 2008 among the instant lawsuit is legitimate

ex officio, we examine the legality of the claim for revocation of imposition of local income tax for the year 2008.

According to Article 177-4(1), (2), and (5) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9302 of Dec. 31, 2008), resident tax to be imposed (applicable to local income tax under the current Local Tax Act) is a local tax to be paid to the head of a Si/Gun/Gu having jurisdiction over the place where income tax is paid. If the head of a tax office collects income tax by means of a correction, determination, etc. under the Framework Act on National Taxes or the Income Tax Act, the head of a Si/Gun/Gu has imposed and notified the resident tax to be imposed at the same time, and thus, the head of a Si/Gun/Gu has deemed to have imposed and notified the head of a Si/Gun/Gu having jurisdiction over the place where income tax is paid (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Du11459, Feb. 25, 2005).

B. Determination on the claim for revocation of the disposition imposing global income tax for the year 2008 of the instant case

The Defendant asserted that this part is unlawful, on the ground that the Defendant merely went through the pre-trial procedure on the imposition of global income tax for the year 2008 on January 2, 2010 and the Defendant did not go through the pre-trial procedure on the imposition of global income tax for the year 2008 against the Plaintiff on March 1, 2015.

According to Article 56(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, an administrative litigation against a disposition of global income shall not be instituted without undergoing a request for examination or adjudgment under the Framework Act on National Taxes and a decision thereon, notwithstanding the main sentence of Article 18(1), Article 18(2) and (3) of the Administrative Litigation Act: Provided, That if two or more administrative dispositions for the same purpose were conducted in the course of step-by-step and development, and the tax authorities have changed the taxation disposition subject to such disposition during the proceeding of tax litigation and common reasons for the same administrative disposition, one of the taxpayers is given an opportunity for determination of basic factual relations and legal issues by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service and the Tax Tribunal on global income again without undergoing a lawful procedure of 0 years prior to the lapse of 20 years prior to the revocation of the disposition of global income tax imposition, the Plaintiff’s request for revocation of the disposition of global income tax imposition without undergoing the procedure of 20 years prior to the lapse of 20 years prior to the revocation of the disposition of global income tax imposition. However, the Plaintiff’s request for revocation of the disposition of 20.

Therefore, the part on which the Plaintiff sought revocation of the disposition imposing global income tax for the year 2008, inasmuch as it did not go through the pre-trial procedure, such as again filing a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal, is unlawful.

C. Determination on the imposition of global income tax for the year 2013 of the instant case

The Defendant asserts that the disposition of imposition of global income tax for the year 2013 of the instant case was unlawful on the ground that the Plaintiff did not pay the amount of tax returned and that the Plaintiff notified the payment of the global income tax according to the details of the return, and that the final tax collection procedure cannot be deemed as the disposition of imposition of tax subject to the revocation lawsuit.

In principle, where a taxpayer did not pay the global income tax base and tax return, but the tax authority issued a tax payment notice by adding additional tax to the unpaid global income tax amount, such tax payment notice is a mixture of a collection disposition ordering the payment of global income tax amount determined by the return and an imposition and collection disposition of additional tax for unfaithful payment, which are subject to appeal litigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Nu1313, Apr. 28, 1992). As seen earlier, as seen earlier, the Defendant issued a tax payment notice to the Plaintiff on August 1, 2014 by adding the amount of additional tax to the unpaid global income tax amount after the Plaintiff filed the final return on the global income tax base for the year 2013. As such, the Defendant’s defense based on the different premise is without merit.

3. Whether the instant disposition imposing global income tax (or tax collection) for the year 2012 and 2013 was lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) In relation to the imposition of global income tax for the year 2012, the Plaintiff was only earned income in 2012 and did not have business income. In the case of only earned income, the Plaintiff is only a hospital that is a withholding agent, and there is no income tax return and tax liability for the Plaintiff.

2) In relation to the imposition of global income tax for the year 2013, the Plaintiff paid all the global income tax for the year 2013 via a certified tax accountant.

3) Therefore, the imposition of global income tax for the year 2012 and the year 2013, prior to a different premise, is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Facts of recognition

According to the above evidence, the Plaintiff’s income generated in 2012 and 2013 and the details of withholding are as follows.

2) Whether the Plaintiff is liable to report and pay global income tax for the year 2012

In principle, a person with global income for the period of 2012 shall file a final return on the tax base of global income from May 1 to May 31, 201 of the year following the relevant taxable period [Article 70 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 12169, Jan. 1, 2014; hereinafter referred to as the “former Income Tax Act”)] Provided, That in certain cases, such as a person with only wage and salary income, a person with only retirement income, and a person with only a specific business income withheld pursuant to Article 127 of the Income Tax Act, etc., the person shall not file a final return on the tax base of global income (Article 73(1) of the former Income Tax Act). However, a person with wage and salary income received from at least two persons, and a person with a certain business income withheld pursuant to Article 127 of the Income Tax Act shall file a final return on the tax base of global income, and a person who has no amount of tax to file a final return on tax base

However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff has earned income from two or more persons regardless of whether the income received from the DD hospital was business income in 2012, and therefore, according to the Plaintiff’s wage and salary income statement (see evidence 6) in 2012, the Plaintiff’s final tax base return on global income tax shall be filed. According to the Plaintiff’s wage and salary income statement (see evidence 6) in 2012, the final tax amount for 98,381,8 XX won is 16,965,90,00,000,000 won and does not constitute a person who has no tax amount to pay the final tax return due to the year-end tax settlement, etc. As such, the Plaintiff is obligated to file the final tax base return on global income tax for 2012. Accordingly, this part of the Plaintiff’

3) Whether the Plaintiff fulfilled all the obligation to pay global income tax for the year 2013

According to the Plaintiff’s statement of earned income (Evidence 7) in 2013, the Plaintiff’s final tax amount for global income for the year 2013 is 28,052,70 won, and the already paid tax amount is 16,943,80 won. According to the aforementioned evidence and the Plaintiff’s statement of evidence No. 4, the Plaintiff paid 3,181,80 won as global income for the year 2008, and the Plaintiff paid 3,225,80 won as global income for the year 2013. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff paid the global income for the year 2013 as global income for the year 2013. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion that there is no justifiable ground for neglecting the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay, as alleged by the Plaintiff.

4. Conclusion

Thus, among the lawsuit of this case, the part concerning the imposition of global income tax and local income tax for 2008 is unlawful, and thus, the remaining claims of the plaintiff are dismissed as they are without merit.