In a case where the amount of income is changed due to disposal of income after the final due date of final return on global income tax base, and the additional tax base and tax amount are additionally reported and voluntarily paid pursuant to Article 134(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, the initial date of the period for filing a request for correction pursuant to Article 45-2(1)1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (=the date following the due date of additional tax return

The legislative intent of Article 134(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20618, Feb. 22, 2008; hereinafter the same) is to defer the tax base and tax amount on the changed income within the final tax base return period of global income provided in Article 70 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9897, Dec. 31, 2009; hereinafter the same) because it is impossible to return and pay the changed tax base and tax amount within the final tax base return period of global income provided in Article 70 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9897, Dec. 31, 2009; hereinafter the same shall apply) by the end of the month following the month in which the notice of change in the tax base and tax amount is received. Accordingly, if the additional tax return period under the above provision can be seen as including the meaning of "the statutory due date of return on global income tax" provided in Article 45(1)1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act.

Article 45-2 (1) 1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 8830 of Dec. 31, 2007); Article 70 (1) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9897 of Dec. 31, 2009); Article 134 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20618 of Feb. 22, 2008)

Plaintiff (Law Firm Dadam, Attorneys Choi Ho-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of Seocho Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 2009Nu9620 decided October 6, 2009

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 45-2 (1) 1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 8830, Dec. 31, 2007; hereinafter the same) provides, “Where a person who has filed a return of tax base within the statutory due date of return exceeds the tax base and tax amount to be reported under the tax-related Acts, the person may request the head of the competent tax office to determine or correct the tax base and tax amount of the national tax for which the initial return and the revised return are filed (where the determination or correction is made under the provisions of each tax-related Act, it refers to the tax base and tax amount after the determination or correction is made) within three years after the statutory due date of return expires.”

Meanwhile, Article 70(1) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9897, Dec. 31, 2009; hereinafter the same) provides that “A resident having global income in the corresponding year shall report the global income tax base to the head of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment from May 1 to May 31 of the year following the corresponding year under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree.” In addition, Article 134(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20618, Feb. 22, 2008; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that “a person who has no obligation to make a final tax return on global income because the amount included in the global income tax base was disposed of as bonus, etc. after the final return on global income tax base was made by the head of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment by the last day of the following month shall be deemed to belong to the date of voluntary payment under Article 192(1).”

The legislative intent of Article 134(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act is to allow a return and payment of the tax base and the tax amount on the changed income amount by the disposal of income after the expiration of the final tax base return of global income. Therefore, it is difficult to allow a return and payment of the tax base and the tax amount by the last day of the month following the month in which the notice of change in the amount of income is received. Therefore, the deadline for further payment under the above provision can be seen as being included in the meaning of the "the statutory due date of return" under Article 45-2(1)1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes. In full view of the purport of the system for requesting a return of reduction or correction under Article 45-2(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, the period from the day following the expiration of the final due date of the final tax base return of global income to be additionally reported and voluntarily paid pursuant to Article 134(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined otherwise on the premise that the period for filing a request for correction under Article 45-2(1)1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes shall be calculated from the day after the deadline for filing the final return of global income tax base under Article 70 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, even in cases where the amount of income was changed by the disposal of income after the deadline for filing the final return of global income tax base, and the additional return and voluntary payment of the tax base and tax amount on the changed income on August 31, 2006, even if the Plaintiff received the notice of the change in the amount of income due to the bonus disposition in this case for which the year to which the income was reverted from the Defendant around July 21, 2006, and received the notice of the change in the amount of income due to the disposal of income after the deadline for filing the final return of global income tax base, which was originally determined under Article 70 of the former Income Tax Act. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the initial period for filing the claim for correction, thereby affecting the judgment.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Sang-hoon (Presiding Justice)