early 201J 2414 ( December 02, 2011)

There is a justifiable reason that it is not likely to cause negligence on the establishment of reserve funds for proper purpose business in the calculation of losses.

A business registration certificate is issued by the tax authority after being approved as an organization which is established for the purpose of disseminating religion and other edification, but the plaintiff is not a religious organization registered with the competent authority, and even though it does not constitute a corporation subject to the establishment of the proper purpose business reserve fund for several years, the tax authority has the authority to report corporate tax for several years, and the tax authority has not presented any objection thereto, and it is reasonable to deem

2012Guhap916 Demanding revocation of Disposition of Corporate Tax Imposition

XX

Head of Namyang District Tax Office

July 10, 2012

September 11, 2012

1. The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 000 on February 24, 2011 for an additional additional tax for unfaithful payment made against the Plaintiff on February 24, 201 and the imposition of KRW 000 for an additional tax for unfaithful payment made against the Plaintiff on June 17, 2011 is 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 is a church affiliated with the XX association established for the purpose of religious dissemination and other edification, and obtained approval from the Defendant as an organization deemed a juristic person under Article 13(2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 8830 of Dec. 31, 2007) and issued a business registration certificate from the Defendant. The Plaintiff set up a reserve for its proper purpose business for interest income generated in the business year 2002-208 and filed a corporate tax return.

B. It is true that the plaintiff is a church belonging to the World ReadingBB Association, which is a foundation, or since the plaintiff itself is not a religious organization registered with the competent authorities, the defendant deemed that it does not constitute a juristic person subject to the establishment of the proper purpose business reserve fund under Article 56 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22035, Feb. 18, 2010); therefore, the plaintiff's establishment of the proper purpose business fund included in deductible expenses in the business year 2005-208, and made a contribution under Article 73 (1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 9272, Dec. 26, 2008; hereinafter referred to as "special donation") and designated donation within the scope of deductible expenses; 00 won for corporate tax of 000 won (including additional corporate tax of 00 won and additional tax of 00 won for late 200,000 won (including additional tax for late 20000 business year) and additional tax for additional tax).

C. On May 24, 201, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the disposition of imposition of corporate tax for the business year of 2005, the Plaintiff filed an appeal on the disposition of imposition of corporate tax for the business year of 2006-2008 on August 26, 2011, and the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision on the disposition of imposition of corporate tax for the business year of 2006-2008 on December 26, 201, the disposition of imposition of corporate tax on February 24, 2011 and June 17, 2011 on June 24, 201 to include the amount paid as special donations in deductible expenses within the scope of the limit of deductible expenses in calculating the amount of income for each business year of 203 and 2004, and that the tax base and amount shall not be applied to the additional tax return and thus the correction of

D. According to the purport of the aforementioned decision of the Tax Tribunal, the Defendant corrected the Plaintiff’s additional tax on negligent tax returns to KRW 00,000 for the business year of 205, the additional tax on negligent tax payment for the business year of 2006, the additional tax on negligent tax payment for the business year of 2007, the additional tax on negligent tax payment for the business year of 2008, and the additional tax on negligent tax for the business year of 2008 to KRW 000, respectively (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In the decision of the Tax Tribunal, the decision of the Tax Tribunal was omitted, but it is recognized that there is a justifiable reason for the plaintiff to return corporate tax for the business year 2005-2008 (hereinafter referred to as the "the corporate tax in this case") and to not fulfill the obligation to pay the corporate tax, the additional tax on negligent tax returns as well as the additional tax on negligent tax returns should be revoked.

B. Relevant statutes

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

C. Determination

1) In order to facilitate the exercise of taxation rights and the realization of tax claims, additional tax under tax law is an administrative sanction imposed under the conditions as prescribed by individual tax-related Acts in cases where a taxpayer violates various duties, such as a return and tax payment, without justifiable grounds, and it is unreasonable for the taxpayer to be aware of such duties, and thus, it is unreasonable for the taxpayer to be reasonably present or to expect the performance of such duties to be carried out by the party concerned, etc., if there are justifiable grounds that make it unreasonable for the taxpayer to be unaware of such duties, imposition may be exempted (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du4089, Apr. 15, 2005).

The additional payment on corporate tax of this case is a kind of administrative sanction to which the interest rate of 11% [number of unpaid daysx (3/10,000] is applied to the amount of tax paid at a higher rate than that of civil law when the taxpayer is liable to pay the amount of tax in good faith and neglected to perform his/her duties in order to secure the payment of the amount of tax in good faith, and it cannot be deemed as having the nature of interest, such

2) In light of the above legal principles, in full view of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that there is a justifiable reason not to mislead the Plaintiff into neglecting his/her duty, by comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed in light of the purport of the entire arguments and the evidence presented earlier

A) Even though the Plaintiff is not a corporation subject to the establishment of the reserve fund for essential business purposes, the Defendant did not have expressed an objection to the issuance of a corporate tax return certificate for several years.

B) Attached Form 56 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance No. 139, Mar. 31, 2010) which reported the tax base and amount of corporate tax for each business year by non-profit corporations with only interest income, including the Plaintiff, was the only review item as to whether the non-profit corporation is subject to the establishment of the reserve fund for proper purpose business as deductible expenses, since there is no item to be stated in the amount of interest income, reserve fund for proper purpose business (the same as the amount of interest), and there is no other item other than the source tax amount,

C) In particular, even though the corporate tax law was amended from the business year of 2002 that the individual church belonging to the Plaintiff could not set the reserve fund for the proper purpose business, the Defendant was determined to include the set amount of the reserve fund for the proper purpose business in deductible expenses and to refund the corporate tax return for the business year of 2002-2004, so it seems unreasonable for the Plaintiff to expect that the set amount of the reserve fund for the proper purpose business should not be included in deductible expenses when filing a report

D) The Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to the effect that the disposition of imposition of additional tax on negligent tax returns should be revoked on the ground that there is a justifiable reason that the Plaintiff could not be negligent in neglecting the amount of the reserve fund for proper purpose business in the calculation of deductible expenses. There is no reason to treat additional tax on negligent tax as administrative sanctions such as additional tax on negligent tax returns

3) Therefore, the disposition imposing additional tax on the Plaintiff should also be revoked on the ground that it is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.