[1] Where the tax authority deemed that the amount of gross income out of the company belongs to an officer or an employee and disposed of as a bonus, the date when the tax authority established the liability to pay global income tax ( earned income tax) of the person to whom the income belongs

[2] The point of time to calculate the additional additional tax imposed as a sanction of failure to pay the tax amount on the changed income after the expiration of the period of final return of global income tax base

[1] In cases where the tax authority deemed that the amount of gross income out of the company belongs to an officer or employee and disposed of income as a bonus, the person who is the withholding agent shall be liable to withhold the income tax on the date when the notice of change in the amount of income is served on the corporation (Article 135(4) of the Income Tax Act, Article 192(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 21(2)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes). Unlike Article 20(1)1(c) of the Income Tax Act, if a disposition of income is made with respect to the person to whom the income belongs regardless of whether the notice of change in the amount of income is served on the corporation, it constitutes "amount disposed of as a bonus under the Corporate Tax Act" under Article 20(1)1(c) of the Income Tax Act and the relevant amount of income is the receipt date of labor during the pertinent business year (Article 39(1) of the Income Tax Act, Article 49(1)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act), and Article 21(1)1) of the Framework Act established.

[2] Article 134(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18705 of Feb. 19, 2005) provides that the additional return and payment deadline of the tax base and the amount of tax on the income resulting from a change in the disposal of income shall be postponed by the end of the month following the month in which the notice of change in the amount of income was received after the final return of global income tax base and the additional payment deadline shall be deferred by the end of the month following the month in which the taxpayer has received the notice of change in the amount of income, and the additional payment for arrears shall be imposed as administrative sanctions on the taxpayer's neglect of payment by the statutory payment deadline. In light of the above, it is reasonable to calculate the additional payment for arrears imposed as sanctions on the income

[1] Articles 20(1)1(c), 39(1), and 135(4) of the Income Tax Act; Articles 49(1)3 and 192(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act; Article 21(1)1 and 21(2)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes / [2] Articles 134(1) and 192(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18705, Feb. 19, 2005)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2004Du4604 Decided July 13, 2006

Plaintiff (Attorney Hong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of Dong Daegu Tax Office

Daegu High Court Decision 2004Nu375 delivered on July 30, 2004

The part of the judgment of the court below concerning the imposition of additional tax for unfaithful payment is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court. The remaining grounds of appeal are dismissed.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

The court below held that even if there is a defect in the procedure for imposing and notifying corporate tax on the non-party company, the notice of change in the amount of income of this case does not become null and void. In light of related Acts and subordinate statutes and records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the notice of change in amount of income, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

The Supreme Court precedents cited in the ground of appeal by the plaintiff are inappropriate to be invoked in this case because they differ from this case.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

Unlike Article 135 (4) of the Income Tax Act, Article 192 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 21 (2) 1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, if a disposition of income is made to the person to whom the income accrued, regardless of whether a notice of change in the income amount was served on the corporation, it constitutes "the amount disposed as a bonus by the Corporate Tax Act" under Article 20 (1) 1 (c) of the Income Tax Act, and the income amount is subject to tax of earned income tax, since the tax authority received the date of provision of labor during the pertinent business year in which the disposition was imposed (Article 39 (1) of the Income Tax Act, Article 49 (1) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 21 (1) 1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes).

Although the reasoning of the court below is somewhat inappropriate, the court below held that the plaintiff could not be found to have any error in making the detailed global income tax and disposition of this case on the basis of such disposition, as long as the "written notice of change in the income amount to be notified to the income earner" was delivered to the non-party company, even though the "written notice of change in the income amount to be notified to the non-party company" was not delivered to the non-party company, who is the representative director of the non-party company to whom the income amount to be accrued belongs, as long as the "written notice of change in income amount to be notified

3. As to the third ground for appeal

Based on its adopted evidence, the court below recognized the fact that the disposition of this case was made on July 2, 2002 after the statutory additional report and payment deadline, and rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the disposition of this case was made on June 28, 2002, unless the plaintiff does not perform the additional return and payment of the tax base and amount within the above statutory report and payment deadline, it is proper to impose the additional return and payment of the tax amount, and otherwise rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the disposition of this case was made on June 28, 2002. In light of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes and the records, the above fact-finding and decision of the court below are just and acceptable, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to the time of establishment

4. As to the fourth ground for appeal

Since there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff voluntarily declared and paid the tax base and tax amount by June 30, 2002, which is the additional return and payment deadline of the global income tax of this case, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s calculation of the additional additional tax for arrears of this case, counting from the day after the final return date of global income tax base for the pertinent business

However, Article 134(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18705, Feb. 19, 2005) provides that where a person who has filed a final return of global income tax base is required to pay the additional income tax because the amount included in gross income has changed due to the disposal of bonus income, etc. after the final return of global income tax base has passed after the final return of global income tax base, the person who has filed the final return of global income tax base is required to pay the additional income tax by the end of the month following the month in which the notice of change of income amount under Article 192(1) is received, if the corporation concerned (where a resident is notified pursuant to the proviso of Article 192(1), the resident concerned) makes a voluntary return of the additional tax within the due date under Article 70 or 74 of the Act. In light of the purport that the additional return of tax base and the due date of payment of income resulting from the disposal of income after the final return of global income tax base and the additional tax payment due to the due date.

Nevertheless, the court below's decision that the defendant's disposition of calculating the additional tax for the erroneous payment of this case is justifiable from the day after the day after the date of the final tax base return and the due date for payment for each of the business years to which the income amount accrued due to the disposition of this case belongs, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the initial date of calculation of the additional tax for the additional payment for the income amount due

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding the disposition on imposition of additional tax for unfaithful payment is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination, and the remaining appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Ji-hyung (Presiding Justice)