Examination Income 2013-0121 (2014.03.10)

No national tax may be imposed after the expiration of five years from the date on which the national tax is assessable.

The date on which a national tax is assessable shall be imposed, and the date on which the national tax is assessable shall be the date on which five years have elapsed after the date on which the tax base and amount of the national tax are reported, shall be the day following the deadline for filing a return, or for filing a

The exclusion period for national tax assessment under Article 26-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2014Guhap8666 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing global income tax, etc.

Section AA

Head of the Office of Government

March 3, 2015

March 31, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The defendant's disposition of imposition of OOO on October 00, 2000 against the plaintiff on the second half of 2007 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The BB construction industry (hereinafter “B construction industry”) was established on January 11, 2006 for the purpose of real estate sale and lease business, and was closed ex officio on June 30, 2010, and the Plaintiff was registered as the representative director of the BB construction industry from December 8, 2006 to January 4, 2008.

나. 〇〇〇세무서장은 BB건설산업의 2007년도 부가가치세 과세자료처리 과정에서 공급가액 OOOO원 상당을 실물거래 없이 매입하였음을 확인하고, 이를 2007년 당시 BB건설산업의 법인등기부상 대표이사로 등재된 원고에 대한 인정상여로 소득처분을 하여 피고에게 과세자료를 통보하였고, 피고는 0000. 0. 00. 원고에게 2007년 과세연도 종합소득세 OOOO원을 경정 ・ 고지하였다(이하 '이 사건 처분'이라 한다).

C. The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an objection on October 0, 000, but was dismissed. On October 00, 000, the Plaintiff filed a request for examination with the National Tax Service, but received a decision of dismissal from the National Tax Service on October 00, 000.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 5-1, 2, Gap evidence 8, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The representative who actually operated the BB construction industry before the BB construction industry is discontinued is Korea-CC, and the Plaintiff is only the representative director in the name of the BB construction industry. Nevertheless, the instant disposition based on the premise that the Plaintiff is the actual representative of the BB construction industry is unlawful.

2) The instant disposition was made after the lapse of the exclusion period for imposition of five years, and is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) Whether the Plaintiff is merely a representative director under the name of the Plaintiff

A) Relevant legal principles

A person who actually exercises the authority as a representative director and actually takes part in the management is a representative subject to a disposition taken by recognizing the representative (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Du8030, Jan. 18, 2008). The fact that a person constitutes the representative director of a corporation who is subject to disposition of income due to recognized contributions is proved by the data, such as the certified transcript of corporate register, etc. The fact that the person is the representative director of a corporation. Despite being registered as the representative director on the corporate register, he/she must prove the circumstances that are not the actual representative (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du116, Dec. 23, 2010)

B) In the instant case:

In light of the above legal principles, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff was registered as the representative director of the BB construction industry from December 8, 2006 to January 4, 2008 on the corporate register. The above evidence and evidence Nos. 13, and No. 4 are as follows: ① the Plaintiff received benefits from the BB construction industry around 2007, which was registered as the representative director of the BB construction industry in the corporate register; ② the Plaintiff asserted that he is only the representative director in the name of the BB construction industry; ③ the Plaintiff did not explain all the circumstances he was registered as the representative director of the BB construction industry; ③ the Plaintiff merely received benefits from the BB construction industry in December 8, 2006 from the BB construction industry and did not know that he was registered as the representative director of the BB construction industry; however, the Plaintiff’s assertion that there was no evidence that the Plaintiff used the BB construction industry’s authority to file a criminal complaint between the representative director and the Plaintiff did not appear to have been included in No. 141 through No. 241.

2) Whether the disposition of this case complies with the exclusion period of imposition

Article 26-2 (1) 3 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 8830 of Dec. 31, 2007) provides that "national taxes shall not be imposed after the lapse of five years from the date on which the relevant national taxes are assessable," and Article 12-3 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21316 of Feb. 6, 2009) provides that "the date on which national taxes may be imposed may be levied" shall be "the next day of the deadline for filing a return or the deadline for filing a return on the tax base and tax amount of the relevant national taxes, when the tax base and tax amount are reported," and Article 70 (1) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8825 of Dec. 31, 2007) provides that "the resident having global income amount of the relevant 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

The plaintiff filed a return on the tax base of global income for the year 2007 to October 00, 2000. Thus, the defendant can impose a comprehensive income tax for the year 2007 from June 1, 2008 to June 1, 2008, which is the day following the deadline for filing the return. The disposition of this case was made on October 00, 200, which is the date when the period for exclusion of the imposition of global income tax for the year 2007 from June 1, 2008, which is the date when the period for exclusion of the imposition of global income tax for the year 2007. Accordingly, the plaintiff's above assertion

3. Conclusion

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