Early High Court Decision 2013J 2627 (O2, 2013.09)

Since the sum of the earned income received from the previous workplace and the earned income received from the new workplace has not been reported, the penalty tax shall be imposed.

Under the tax law, when comprehensively taking into account the fact that the taxpayer’s intentional, negligent, or statutory sites, mistakes, etc. are not considered as administrative sanctions imposed in cases where a taxpayer violates various obligations prescribed by the law without justifiable grounds, the disposition of this case on which the disposition authority imposed the applicant’s comprehensive income tax is not erroneous.

Articles 70, 73, and 76 of the Income Tax Act

2013Guhap1922 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing local income tax

IsaA

the director of the tax office of Western

April 4, 2014

April 18, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

On May 1, 2013, the Defendant revoked the imposition of OOO income tax (global income tax) on the Plaintiff in 2008.

1. Details of the disposition;

"A. The plaintiff was paid the wage and salary income of the OOO members of the Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Co., Ltd.") while working for BB interest presses Korea Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "former Work") from January 1, 2008 to September 30, 208, and for the work for CCC from October 1, 2008 to December 31, 2008." (b) The plaintiff paid the total year-end tax settlement for each of the above wage and salary income of the former Work and the new Work, or the total amount of global income tax for the wage and salary income of the former Work.

C. On May 1, 2013, the Defendant rendered a disposition to the Plaintiff on May 1, 2013, imposing global income tax for the global income tax for 2008 (hereinafter “instant disposition”), including the amount of non-reported additional tax and non-paid additional tax for the global income tax for 2008, upon the Plaintiff’s total wage and salary income amount for the year 2008 (i.e., OOOwon + OOOOOwon in the former place of work) (i.e., e., OOOwon in the new place of work). The Defendant issued a disposition to the Plaintiff on May 1, 208, imposing global income tax for 2008 (hereinafter “instant disposition”), including the amount of non-reported additional tax for the report and non-paid additional tax for the payment).

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

① The Defendant did not give any advance notice or notice to the Plaintiff regarding the instant disposition (section 1), ② the Defendant did not present the accurate tax base details in rendering the instant disposition to the Plaintiff (section 2), and ③ the Plaintiff did not have any negligence with respect to the return or payment of wage and salary income at the new workplace (section 3), and there is no reason to impose additional tax on the Plaintiff (section 3). Therefore, the instant disposition with such defect should be revoked as it is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

1) As to Chapter 1

The fact that the Plaintiff did not report or pay the wage and salary income at the new workplace, and the instant disposition is identical to the fact that the tax amount of the notice of payment is less than the OOO won as the OOO won, and thus, the Defendant cannot be deemed liable to give prior notice of the pre-announcement of taxation to the Plaintiff when rendering the instant disposition.

2) As to the second proposal

According to Gap evidence No. 1, while the defendant issued the disposition in this case to the plaintiff, it can be acknowledged that the tax base of global income tax in 2008 was attached to OOO, tax rate of 17.00%, calculated tax amount of OOO, additional tax amount of OOO, various deductible tax amount of OOO, and OOOO in relation to the notified tax amount within the payment period. Thus, the defendant provided the plaintiff with the tax base related to the disposition in this case.

3) As to the third proposal

There is no evidence to acknowledge that there is a justifiable reason to exempt the Plaintiff from penalty tax in relation to the instant disposition. Rather, comprehensively taking account of the evidence framework as indicated in the above disposition, the Plaintiff’s year-end settlement by adding up the total amount of wage and salary income of the previous workplace and new workplace or failure to make a final return and payment of global income tax by May 31, 2009 appears to be attributable to the Plaintiff’s legal premises or misunderstanding, and such circumstance cannot be deemed as a justifiable reason to exempt the penalty tax (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Du3714, Oct. 26, 2006).

4) Sub-committee

Therefore, the above argument by the plaintiff is without merit, and the disposition of this case is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

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