National Tax Service Review Income 2012-0088 (21, 2012.21)

Since the original taxpayer is not a reporter, the disposition of this case made within the exclusion period of seven years is legitimate.

Since the original taxpayer constitutes a person who filed global income tax base return, as well as other income accrued in 2004, and thus, the exclusion period for imposition of seven years shall apply. Thus, the instant disposition made within seven years from the exclusion period for imposition of seven years is lawful.

2012Guhap42168 Other revocation of disposition imposing income tax

AAD District Corporation

Head of the District Tax Office

May 30, 2013

July 4, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 000 on December 1, 201, which reverts to the Plaintiff, for the year 2004, shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, a corporation engaged in the tetery and internal construction business, was awarded a contract for the construction of social welfare facilities equivalent to KRW 000 from DDD in the taxable period of added value, and was issued sales tax invoices to DD, and was issued 00 won in purchase tax invoices and 000 won in purchase tax invoices from EE internal construction while performing the said construction.

B. The Defendant: (a) considered the purchase tax invoice 00 won among the purchase tax invoices 000 won, and the sum of 000 won among the purchase tax invoices 000 won that the Plaintiff received from the EE EE internal construction (hereinafter “the instant money”) as the processing tax invoice; (b) deducted the input tax amount of value-added tax on this portion; and (c) confirmed that the Plaintiff paid the instant money to YO as the construction brokerage commission; and (d) disposed of the instant money as other income to YO on April 26, 201; and (c) notified the Plaintiff as the withholding agent of the change in income amount on December 1, 201; and (c) the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff through the request for re-determination of the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on December 1, 2004, and through the notice of change in income amount (hereinafter “the instant request for re-determination”).

[Based on Recognition] The entire purport of Gap, Eul, Eul, and Eul, Eul, and three, and the whole arguments

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

1) The plaintiff's assertion

The defendant issued the disposition in this case after the lapse of five years from June 1, 2005, which was the initial date of the exclusion period for imposition of global income tax on the amount of YO, and the disposition in this case was unlawful since the original taxpayer's global income tax liability became invalid after the lapse of the exclusion period for imposition of global income tax.

2) The defendant's assertion

Since the YellowO constitutes a person filing global income tax without any report on other income as well as other income accrued in 2004, a long-term exclusion period of 7 years shall apply. However, since the Plaintiff commits fraud or other unlawful act to conceal the fact that yellowO is a person to whom income accrues by appropriating the instant money as construction cost, the long-term exclusion period of 10 years shall apply. The instant disposition is lawful since it was made within the exclusion period of 7 years or 10 years as above.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

“The amount of income of the Plaintiff as other income under the provisions of the Corporate Tax Act is considered to have been paid to the person to whom the income was attributed on the date when the tax base return was received, but it is merely deemed to have been paid to the person to whom the income was actually attributed. If the income tax of the original taxpayer is to be established upon receipt of the above notice of change in the income amount, it shall be deemed that the income tax liability of the said taxpayer was established, and if the tax liability of the original taxpayer was already extinguished within the exclusion period of imposition, it shall not be established. Thus, it is unlawful to impose the income tax on the person to whom the tax was withheld for 20 years from the date when the tax base return was filed for 20 years from the date when the tax base return was filed for 20 years from the date when the tax base return was filed, and for 20 years from the date when the tax base return was filed for 20 years from the date when the tax base return was filed, and for 20 years from the date when the exclusion period of imposition was not applied.”

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit.