Scope of the right to impose taxes, the prescription of which is suspended by a tax payment notice.

The part for which the extinctive prescription of the right to impose taxes is suspended by a notice of tax payment shall continue with respect to the portion for which the notice of tax payment is served and the remaining amount, without interruption of prescription.

Articles 27(1) and 28(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Supreme Court Decision 84Nu649 Decided February 13, 1985

[Defendant-Appellee] Han Bank Co., Ltd., Counsel for defendant-appellee and defendant-appellee

Head of Central Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 85Gu445 delivered on March 11, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to Article 27(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, if the State’s right to collect national taxes is not exercised within five years from the time it is possible to exercise such right, the extinctive prescription shall expire. Article 28(1) of the same Act provides that a notice of tax payment shall be one of the grounds for suspending extinctive prescription under Article 27 of the same Act. However, the part for which prescription is interrupted by a notice of tax payment shall continue without interruption of prescription with respect to the portion for which the notice of tax payment was served and the remaining amount (see Supreme Court Decision 84Nu649 delivered on February 13, 1985).

In this regard, even if the court below made a decision to revise the corporate tax on the part of the plaintiff on the ground that in calculating the tax credit amount on the foreign source income in the business year of November 1, 1983 (1-1, 1978.1-1, 1978.31, 1978.1-1, 1978.31) tax base and the tax credit amount on the foreign source income of the plaintiff corporation, the tax payment notice pursuant to the above decision to correct the above amount has no effect of interrupting the statute of limitations on the right to impose tax on the foreign currency stabilization bonds and the foreign currency stabilization bonds of this case, which were excessively exempted from taxation at the time of the return and payment of corporate tax in the business year of the plaintiff corporation, and the tax imposition right on the foreign currency stabilization bonds and the income portion of the business year of 1978, which were the date following the statutory due date of return of corporate tax of the business year of 1979.3.8.16, 1984.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)