logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2018.03.29 2017두69991
종합소득세 등 부과처분취소
Text

The judgment below

The part against the plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The defendant.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed)

A. Article 26-2(1)3 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 9911, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter the same) provides that in principle, the exclusion period of imposition of national taxes, other than inheritance tax and gift tax, shall be five years from the date on which the relevant national tax may be assessed. Meanwhile, Article 26-2(1)1 provides that “where a taxpayer evades, evades, or obtains a refund or deduction from national taxes by fraudulent or other unlawful means, the relevant national tax shall be ten years from the date on which

The legislative intent of Article 26-2(1)1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes is, in principle, the exclusion period of the right to impose national taxes while five years are required for the prompt determination of tax-related relations.

If it is difficult to find out the facts or there is any fraudulent act such as creating false facts, it is difficult to expect the exercise of the imposition right because it is difficult for the tax authorities to find that the report of omission is a report of omission, and it is difficult to extend the exclusion period of imposition of the national tax to ten years.

Therefore, “Fraud or other unlawful act” under Article 26-2(1)1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes refers to a deceptive scheme or other active act that makes it impossible or considerably difficult to impose and collect taxes, and it does not constitute merely failing to file a tax return under the tax law or filing a false tax return without accompanying other acts (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Du7667, Dec. 12, 2013). In addition, even if a taxpayer gets income from a disguised title, the nominal title comes from the purpose of tax evasion, and further, the preparation of a false contract and payment of a false price, false tax return to the tax authority, and false tax return to the tax authority.

arrow