Seocho 2012west 3624 ( November 19, 2012)

The disposition of income as the bonus of the representative omitted amount and the disposition notified of the change in the amount of income is not erroneous.

Even if a corporation fails to include the price related to the omission in sales in the account book and accounts as the cash has been deposited, since the other party account is unclear, the omission in sales that should have been entered in the account book as the revenue of the corporation constitutes an outflow from the company whose ownership is unclear, and thus the relevant omission in sales is deemed as the representative bonus and the disposition that was taxed

2013Guhap50500 and lawsuit demanding revocation of his/her earned income

AAA Vietnam Investment Corporation

BB Director of the Tax Office

July 5, 2013

August 23, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of litigation shall be borne by the plaintiff.

On February 17, 2012, the Defendant revoked the imposition of the source tax on the wage and salary income belonging to the year 201 on the Plaintiff (calculated calculated OOO, additional tax OOOO, and deducted tax amount) on the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation that has been engaged in financial business, etc. from October 24, 1990.

(B) On June 201, the director of the tax office confirmed that the Plaintiff was omitted in the sales at the time of filing corporate tax return on the OOOO that the Plaintiff received in return for management consulting from DD in the year of 2010, and notified the Plaintiff of the change in the income amount on June 30, 201 (hereinafter “instant notice of change in the income amount”). (c) On August 26, 2011, the Plaintiff transferred the business place to Songpa-gu, and notified the Plaintiff of the said fact on February 17, 2012, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the change in the income amount (hereinafter “instant collection disposition”).

D. On August 6, 2012, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant collection disposition, filed a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal on August 6, 2012, and the said request was dismissed on November 19, 2012. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff did not assert the notice of change in the amount of income through an appeal litigation, etc.

Facts without dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 1, 7, and Eul evidence 1 through 4 (including evidence 5) and the whole purport of the pleading.

2. Whether the collection disposition of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Even if the Plaintiff did not report the sales of the account manager’s actual sales, the Plaintiff used the said money in full to purchase the convertible bonds issued by the EED Co., Ltd., and thus, the omitted sales amount cannot be deemed as a representative bonus, and the instant collection disposition made on a different premise is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Where a tax authority’s disposition of income and notice of change in the amount of income accrued therefrom are issued, a corporation obligated to pay the source source income shall be deemed to have paid the relevant amount to the person to whom the income recorded in the notice is attributed on the date of receipt of the notice of change in the amount of income, and at the same time the liability to pay income withheld is established. Thus, the notice of change in the amount of income shall be subject to appeal litigation as an act of the tax authority that directly affects the corporate tax liability (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2002Du1878, Apr. 20, 2006). Furthermore, the tax authority’s notice of change in the amount of income constitutes a disposition of tax payment ordering the payment of the finalized amount of income, and even if the defect exists in the notice of change in the amount of income that is a prior disposition, it shall not be succeeded as it is, unless the defect does not constitute grounds for invalidation. Therefore, where the tax authority’s disposition and the notice of change in the amount of income accrued therefrom, it must be asserted in an appeal litigation (see Supreme Court Decision 2014.

In light of the above legal principles, the plaintiff did not dispute the above disposition at the time of notifying the change of the income amount in this case, and the defect in the notice of change in the income amount in this case is not the inherent defect in the collection disposition in this case, but the collection disposition in this case is disputing the collection disposition in this case on that ground. Thus, the collection disposition in this case cannot be deemed unlawful unless the notice of change in the income amount in this case is null and void automatically. The defect in the plaintiff's assertion in this case is only a ground for revocation of the notice of change in the income amount in this case, and it cannot be deemed that the defect in the plaintiff's assertion in this case constitutes grounds

(2) On this issue, the plaintiff, immediately after the notice of change in the amount of income of this case was issued, declared by the representative director ofCC at the time of the plaintiff's declaration of objection against it, but the above investigator requested submission or supplementation of materials several times, and it was not possible for the above investigator to ex officio revoke the notice of change in the amount of income of this case. This is different from that of deceiving the plaintiff who is the taxpayer and allowing the tax authority to go beyond the prescribed period of objection. Thus, the defendant asserted that the collection disposition of this case was legitimate by considering the issue that the tax authority did not dispute the notice of change in the amount of income of this case.

However, even if there was a fact as alleged by the plaintiff, it is judged whether it constitutes the intention or negligence of public officials, and whether it was caused by the damage, separate from claiming state compensation, etc., it cannot be viewed that it affects the judgment above, and that the plaintiff did not object to the notice of change in the income amount within the prescribed period, and the above argument cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

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