Whether the prepayment tax amount by a regular return of global income tax is extinguished due to absorbing the regular return tax amount.

The regular return of global income tax and the return of the prepayment tax amount shall not be deemed to have been extinguished because the return of prepayment tax amount is absorption into the regular return tax amount.

Article 65 of the Income Tax Act

2014Guhap51913 global income and revocation of such disposition

KimA

Gangwon-gu Director of the District Office

June 26, 2014

August 28, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The imposition of global income tax of KRW 33,284,740 on the Plaintiff on November 9, 2012 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A.O.O. 200.O. 200. The Plaintiff calculated the annual global income conversion amount of 173,160,000 won, global income deduction of 2,00,000 won, global income deduction of 171,160,60,600 won, calculated tax amount of 45,766,210 won, and 23,383,100 won for interim prepayment calculation amount of 23,383,100 won, but did not pay it.

B. On May 30, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a final return on the tax base of global income tax for 2008 with the Defendant, deducting KRW 23,277,605 as the payable tax amount, when calculating the payable tax amount.

C. On November 9, 2012, the Defendant calculated the interim prepayment standard amount as KRW 46,556,210, the final tax amount as KRW 23,278,105, the additional tax amount as KRW 10,639, on the ground that the Plaintiff did not pay the interim prepayment tax amount for global income tax for the year 2008, and corrected and notified the interim prepayment tax amount as KRW 33,284,740 (including the additional tax) for the global income tax for the year 2008 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an objection on November 23, 2012, and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on April 18, 2013, but was dismissed on November 6, 2013.

The whole pleadings and arguments of Gap's No. 1, 2, and Eul's No. 1 through 3, which have no dispute for recognition;

purport of this chapter

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The tax base and tax amount of global income tax in the relevant taxable period are prepaid tax, and thus becomes extinct upon the final and conclusive tax base and tax amount of global income tax in the relevant taxable period. The imposition of global income tax in the year 2008 on November 9, 201 after the Plaintiff filed the final and conclusive tax base return on global income tax in the year 2008 is unlawful.

Doshe filed a return on the interim prepayment amount by November 30, 2008, the tax notice of the interim prepayment amount that was notified to the resident by the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment until November 15, 2008 is deemed not to have been determined. Since the Plaintiff filed the interim prepayment amount of the global income tax for which November 30, 2008 belongs, the Plaintiff’s return on the interim prepayment amount is not effective, and the interim prepayment amount that was notified by the Defendant around November 15, 2008 is valid. The instant disposition based on the interim prepayment amount reported by the Plaintiff is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination on the Plaintiff’s assertion as stated in the above A. (i)

A resident with global income shall pay an amount equivalent to 1/2 of the income tax paid or payable as income tax on global income in the immediately preceding taxable period (hereinafter referred to as "interim interim prepayment standard amount") as his/her interim prepayment tax amount until November 30, 199, or make a return and payment of the estimate interim prepayment amount until November 30 (Article 65(1) and (3) of the Income Tax Act where income during the interim prepayment period falls short of a specific standard (Article 65(1) and (3) of the Income Tax Act), and a resident shall make a final return by the deadline for the final return (Article 76(1) and (2) of the Income Tax Act), and where a final return is made, the amount of tax on the tax base in the relevant taxable period (Article 76(1) and (2) of the Income Tax Act shall be deemed lawful until December 30, 200 if he/she pays the interim prepayment tax, the Plaintiff shall not be separately obligated to pay the amount of tax on global income for 20 years (Article 76(3) of the Income Tax Act).

D. Judgment on the plaintiff's ground of appeal No. 1

According to the evidence Eul evidence No. 1, although the plaintiff 208 return date of the estimate interim prepayment amount for the year 2008, which was entered in the defendant's computerized data, is recognized as having been December 4, 2008, and on the other hand, the notice of the interim prepayment tax by the head of the tax office under Article 65 (1) of the Income Tax Act was equivalent to 1/2 of the interim prepayment base amount, and on the premise that the amount of the estimate interim prepayment amount for the return under paragraph (3) of the same Article is below 30/100 of the interim prepayment base amount, it becomes less than the actual amount of the notice of the interim prepayment tax by the head of the tax office. The resident's view that the estimate interim prepayment amount is recognized is more favorable than that of the notice of the interim prepayment tax base by the head of the tax office, and even if the resident filed a return of the estimate interim prepayment amount for the return of the interim prepayment amount for the tax prepayment amount for the year 2008, the defect and error of the plaintiff's interim prepayment tax base and tax base and tax amount are invalid (2).

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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