Whether the exclusion period for imposition of notice of the change in income amount and the recognition of extra expense of the assertion has expired.

00. Heavy Industries

The notification of the change in the amount of income belonging to the year 2005 is illegal because it is an integrative filing legislation and a notification of the change in the amount of income belonging to the year 2006.

Article 26-2 of the National Tax Basic Act

Suwon District Court 2014Guhap2240 (No. 25, 2015)

00 Director of Regional Tax Office et al.

on February 14, 2013, 2005, the corporate tax for the business year of the Plaintiff by the director of the tax office.

169,413,240 won of corporate tax for the business year 2006 and 227,167,470 won of corporate tax for the business year 2006 and the portion exceeding 211,329,620 won of the disposition imposing corporate tax for the plaintiff on January 2, 2013, and the portion exceeding 289,980,97,900 won of the disposition imposing corporate tax for the business year 406,327,040, and the portion exceeding 289,962,97,97,700 won of corporate tax for the business year 209, and the portion exceeding 162,97,74,700 won of the disposition imposing corporate tax for the plaintiff on the plaintiff on February 15, 2013, the portion exceeding 205, 350, 206, 207, 297, 2096, 2005, 20947, 2097, 27, 7

15.05.07

oly, 2015.25

1. On February 15, 2013, the commissioner of regional tax office of 00 revokes each disposition of notification of changes in income amount of 350,010,000 won for the Plaintiff in 2005, and of 498,070,030 won for the year 2006, respectively. 2. The Plaintiff’s claim against the director of regional tax office of 00 and the remainder of the claim against the director of regional tax office of 00 are dismissed.

3. The plaintiff shall bear the costs of lawsuit between the plaintiff and the defendant 00, and 1/5 of the costs of lawsuit between the plaintiff and the defendant 00 Commissioner of the Regional Tax Office shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the remainder by the director of the Regional Tax Office

Cheong-gu Office

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation established on January 13, 200 and engaged in waste collection and disposal business.

B. Defendant 00 Commissioner of the Regional Tax Office conducted an integrated investigation of corporate tax against the Plaintiff and an investigation of the source of personal funds against Park 00,000, the representative director of the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff took the disposition of deductible expenses from 2005 to 2009 as stated in the details of deductible expenses in the attached Form. The Plaintiff deemed KRW 3,062,079,060 included in deductible expenses as deductible expenses from 2005 to the business year of 2009 as deductible expenses, and made a disposition of bonus to Park 00. In addition, Defendant 00 Commissioner of the Regional Tax Office confirmed the fact that Park 00 withdrawn KRW 1 billion from the Plaintiff’s deposit account on July 25, 2008, and confirmed the fact that he paid the amount of KRW 97,729,840 as deductible expenses and treated the amount of KRW 45,586,3

D. Based on the above findings of investigation, the head of the tax office 00-200-200-274,785,600-2, corporate tax for the business year 2007, 480,096,080-2,692,697,140-2, corporate tax for the business year 2009, and 169,413,240-2, 2005-2, 30-7, 200-7, 200-7, 200-7, 30-7, 200-7, 200-7, 167, 470-7, 200-7, 200-7, 30-7, 200-7, 205, 200-7, 200-7, 205, 200-7, 200-7, 2005.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 16, 17 evidence, Eul evidence 1 through 6 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) ① On March 13, 2009, the Plaintiff actually paid KRW 20 million to 00,000,000 as civil petitions and other treatment costs. Since the Plaintiff paid KRW 186,80,000 as an employee’s bonus from around 2005 to 2009, each of the above money must be included in deductible expenses and excluded from bonus disposition. ② The 1 billion won paid to 100,000,000 won to 186,80,000 won as a bonus shall be excluded from bonus disposition. ② Since the provisional payment is not unrelated to the business as to the lease deposit amount paid to 00,000 to rent land and buildings owned by 1.0,000 won, each of the above dispositions of this case was unlawful in calculating the gross income and bonus as a representative, and the corresponding interest is excluded from deductible expenses.

2) Even if the above amount is a provisional payment unrelated to processing expenses and business affairs, it cannot be deemed as a case of evading national taxes through fraud or other unlawful acts, so the exclusion period of five years under Article 26-2(1)3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes shall apply. Of the disposition of revising the corporate tax in this case, it is invalid for the portion belonging to the year 2005, 2006 and the 2005,206 notice of the change in the amount of income in this case after the lapse of five years of exclusion period of five. 3) In addition, since the Plaintiff did not under-reported national taxes, it is unlawful for the Plaintiff to include penalty tax for under-reported return (40/100 of under-reported tax amount) while revising the corporate tax in this case.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) On March 13, 2009, the Plaintiff, while remitting KRW 20 million to New 00,000,000,000 to the cash book, deposited at the cash book as KRW 20,000 on the same day, and entered the account book as KRW 20,000,000 from the agricultural bank account (00) in the name of the legal entity on the same day to the president of the account, a general deposit account.

2) From February 3, 2005 to December 31, 2009, the Plaintiff alleged that KRW 186,800,000, out of the 384,860,000 withdrawn from the Agricultural Cooperative Account0 under the name of a juristic person, was paid as bonus to its employees, but there is no statement in the wage ledger or account book that the above KRW 186,80,000 was paid as bonus. 3) The Plaintiff remitted KRW 1 billion to 00,000 on July 25, 2008, and 00,000 was repaid with the above money by acquiring land from 00,000,000,000,0000.

4) From August 13, 2012 to September 11, 2012, Defendant 00 Director of the Regional Tax Office conducted an integrated investigation of corporate tax against the Plaintiff, and an investigation of the source of personal funds against the Plaintiff’s representative director, and the source of personal funds against the Plaintiff’s 00. The following real estate acquired in the name of 00 as a result of the aforementioned investigation was identified as the principal source of the corporation’s funds and the provisional payment from 00,000, borrowed from the Plaintiff.

5) Defendant 00 Commissioner of the Regional Tax Office: (a) disposed of the amount appropriated as a processing expense as a bonus in deductible expenses or representative; and (b) notified the head of the tax office of the result and made the disposition of correction of corporate tax.

6) Meanwhile, after the aforementioned investigation, the Plaintiff prepared a lease agreement on real estate in 00 on October 1, 2012, which was 00, and submitted to the Commissioner of the National Tax Service the above lease agreement, satellite photographs, site photographs, and the specifications of electric use as evidence for the use of expenses. [Grounds for recognition] The Plaintiff did not dispute, each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, and Eul evidence Nos. 9 through 17, the purport of the entire pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

C. Determination

1) Determination as to whether processing expenses and provisional payments unrelated to the work are paid

A) In an administrative litigation seeking revocation of a tax disposition, the tax authority bears the burden of proof as to the existence of the above disposition, but the taxpayer bears the burden of proof as to the existence of special circumstances under the empirical rule. Therefore, the tax authority bears the burden of proof as to the amount of expenses to be included in the deductible expenses, which are the basis of corporate tax base, in principle. However, there are cases where the taxpayer bears the burden of proof as to the specific items of expenses in light of the equity of the parties, etc., the taxpayer’s assertion that some of the expenses reported are not actual expenses, and the taxpayer’s assertion that the above amount of expenses would be false. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the above amount of expenses would not be included in the amount of 00-year bonus for the above 00-year bonus and the amount of 20-year bonus paid to the taxpayer, and the Plaintiff’s assertion that the above amount of expenses would not be included in the amount of 00-year bonus as 00-year bonus for 200-year bonus, including the following facts.

The evidence presented by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that each of the above money was actually used as necessary expenses or as a lease deposit, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that it is different, and this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

2) Determination on the exclusion period of imposition

A) Relevant provisions

Article 26-2(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides for five years of the exclusion period of national taxes (Article 26-2(1). However, if a taxpayer evades national taxes, or obtains a refund or deduction due to fraudulent or other unlawful acts prescribed by Presidential Decree (hereinafter referred to as "illegal acts"), it shall be extended to ten years from the date on which it is possible to impose national taxes (the former part of subparagraph 1). If a national tax is evaded or refunded or disposed of by unlawful act, it shall be extended to ten years from the date on which income tax, etc. can be imposed on the amount disposed of under Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act (the latter part of subparagraph 1). In addition, Article 2(1) of the Addenda of the Framework Act on National Taxes (Act No. 11124, Dec. 31, 201) provides that the latter part of Article 26-2(1)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes (the latter part of Article 26-2(1)1 of the Corporate Tax Act shall also apply to the amount of corporate tax for which was disposed of 10 years prior to the exclusion period.

According to Article 26-2(1)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 12-2(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and Article 3(6) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, unlawful act means a deceptive scheme or other active act that makes it impossible or significantly difficult to impose taxes, such as preparation of double books and records, and preparation of false evidence or false documents. The facts acknowledged earlier are as follows, comprehensively taking into account the overall purport of arguments. i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged: ① the Plaintiff’s assertion that considerable amount of deductible expenses in attached Form 1 was spent for bonus or other costs, such as bonus, and so forth, it is apparent that there was a false entry in the book even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion. ② In light of the above, it is difficult to view that the reported amount was spent as a civil petition treatment cost or bonus; ③ in light of the timing of purchasing each real estate with 00 persons’ names, income and property at that time, etc., the Plaintiff appears to have used the money in cash from each of the above corporations from 200 years to 200.

C) Whether the disposition of corporate tax correction is illegal

If a taxpayer evades a tax due to an unlawful act, the exclusion period for imposition of corporate tax for the pertinent business year is extended to ten years pursuant to Article 26-2 (1) 1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and the fact that the plaintiff evades a tax due to an active act, such as making a false account book, is as seen earlier. The corporate tax for the business year 2005 and 2006 is imposed on April 1, 2006 and April 14, 2007, before the lapse of ten years from April 14, 2013, which is before the lapse of ten years from April 14, 2007, and thus the imposition of corporate tax for the pertinent business year is legitimate.

According to the latter part of Article 26-2(1)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 2(1) of the Addenda of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 11124, Dec. 31, 2011), the exclusion period for imposition of income tax on the amount of income disposed of in a fraudulent act shall be five years in cases where the income was disposed of before December 31, 201, and ten years in cases where the income was disposed of after January 1, 2012, in principle, ten years in cases where the income was disposed of after February 15, 2013. However, Article 13(2) of the Constitution provides that all citizens are not deprived of property rights through retroactive legislation, and Article 18(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that the exclusion period for imposition of income tax on the amount of income disposed of in a fraudulent act shall be 10 years in cases where income was disposed of before the enactment of a new principle of no retroactive taxation by the Constitutional Court (see Article 18(2) of the Framework Act).

First of all, it is apparent that the exclusion period has already been imposed before January 1, 2012, which is the enforcement date of the latter part of the above provision, with respect to the notice of change in the income amount reverted to year 2005. In this case, it is not deemed that there is a reason for the public interest to allow the legislation of the appeal against the appeal against the complaint. Accordingly, the exclusion period is five years since the latter part of the above provision is not applicable to the notice of change in the income amount reverted to year 2005. Therefore, the notice of change in the income amount which was made on February 15, 2013, which was five years after the date of imposition, is null and void

Then, the latter part of the above provision was enforced on January 1, 2012, which was the enforcement date of the above provision. Thus, the latter part of the above provision constitutes an in personam pay legislation with respect to the notification on the change of income amount reverting to the year 2006. However, the precedents prior to the establishment of the above provision, aside from the fact that the representative of a corporation conceals corporate income due to an unlawful act, it is difficult to view the representative to have committed an unlawful act in order to evade income tax to be imposed on the ground that it is expected that the representative would be subject to a disposition for over 10 years, and it is difficult to view the above provision to have committed an unlawful act in order to avoid income tax being imposed (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Du11382, Apr. 29, 2010). Since the above provision of the latter part of the above provision constitutes a change in the exclusion period of imposition for 10 years until it is difficult to recognize the intention of tax evasion under the previous provision, the above provision should also be deemed to have been applied to the above provision of 205 years.

Article 47-3(1) and (2)1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 11124, Dec. 31, 2011; hereinafter the same) provides that an amount equivalent to 10/100 of the amount calculated by multiplying the ratio of the amount equivalent to the under-reported tax base to the tax base when a taxpayer falls short of the tax base to be reported shall be the additional tax, but the amount equivalent to 40/100 shall be the additional tax in a case where a taxpayer under-reported in an unjust manner. Meanwhile, Article 47-2(2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 27(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23592, Feb. 2, 2012) provides that the taxpayer’s unlawful method under Article 47-3(1)1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, such as false entry in books, false documentation, or false documents, constitutes a violation of the Plaintiff’s obligation to report on national tax, as seen earlier.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, the notice of change in the amount of income accrued in 2005 and 2006 among each disposition of this case is null and void after the exclusion period for imposition expires. Therefore, each disposition of this case should be revoked.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and each of the remaining claims is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.