Seocho 2013west 1403

The exclusion period for imposition of corporate tax on the receipt of the income of a corporation with the account in the name of the representative, underreporting the corporate tax and false entry in the account book shall be ten years.

The period for exclusion of imposition of the corporate tax in this case is 10 years since the plaintiffs committed fraudulent means or other unlawful acts that significantly difficult to impose and collect the corporate tax, and the original disposition that the defendants disposed of within the exclusion period for imposition of the corporate tax in this case is valid because they intentionally concealed the revenue amount by receiving the corporate income in the name of the representative and not reported the taxable amount and falsely recorded on the books.

Article 26-2 of the National Tax Basic Act

Action to confirm the invalidity of imposition, such as corporate tax, global income tax, etc.

1.A 2. oilB of a stock company

1.CCC Director 2.D Director

July 2, 2013

August 23, 2013

1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

On March 16, 2012, Defendant CCC Head of the tax office confirms that the imposition of the corporate tax on Plaintiff AA for the business year 2006 by Defendant DD Head of the tax office and the imposition of the global income tax on Plaintiff B on April 24, 2012 by Defendant DD Head of the tax office are all null and void.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff Company AA (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff AA”) is a corporation that operates machinery, water, and tools trade, and Plaintiff B is the representative director of Plaintiff AA.

B. In 2006, Plaintiff AA imported and arranged the supply of industrial gambling sites from EE company located in New Zealand (hereinafter referred to as “E company”), and among them, the non-party company deposited the Plaintiff’s UB’s account from the non-party company into the passbook account of the Plaintiff UB in 19 times (hereinafter referred to as “the instant issue amount”).

C. After that, in the audit conducted by the OO of the regional tax office in 2010, the director of the CCC instructed to verify whether the pertinent issue amount was appropriate for the pertinent issue amount, and the director of the CCC deemed the instant issue amount as the income of the Plaintiff AA, and notified the Plaintiff AA of the correction and notification of the OOOO of the corporate tax for the business year 2006 (hereinafter “instant disposition on imposition of corporate tax”), and the head of the CCC notified the director of the tax office having jurisdiction over the domicile of the Plaintiff UB as the representative director’s bonus disposition equivalent to the instant issue amount.

D. On April 24, 2012, according to the above notice, the head of the Defendant DD Tax Office corrected and notified the Plaintiff UBOO on April 24, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “instant imposition of income tax”), and “each of the instant dispositions” in addition to the disposition of imposition of corporate tax in this case.

E. On March 15, 2013, the Plaintiffs dissatisfied with each of the instant dispositions, filed a request with the Tax Tribunal on March 15, 2013, and the Tax Tribunal dismissed the said request on April 19, 2013, on the grounds that the request period has elapsed, and thus, the said request was unlawful.

Facts without dispute over the basis of recognition, and entries in Gap evidence 1 through 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The disposition of imposing the corporate tax of this case is null and void since it was made five years after the exclusion period for imposition. Although the exclusion period for imposition of the income tax of this case was not imposed, it was made by disposing of the amount in the calculation of the income under Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act, and since the disposition of imposing the corporate tax of this case is null and void as above, the disposition of imposing the income tax of this case

The defendant asserts that the exclusion period of imposition of the corporate tax in this case falls under the case where the taxpayer evades national tax, is refunded, or deducted by fraudulent or other unlawful act under Article 26-2 (1) 1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes. However, the issue amount in this case is merely the case where the non-party company's market opening expenses for the non-party company is deposited by the plaintiff UB, and it is not the profit of the plaintiff AA, and it was received as the account of the plaintiff UBB, and it cannot be deemed that the taxpayer evaded national tax by fraudulent or other unlawful act.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) According to Article 26-2(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and Article 26-2(1) of the same Act, a national tax may not be imposed more than five years after the date on which the tax is assessable (Article 26-2(1)3). However, where a taxpayer evades a national tax or obtains a refund or deduction by fraud or other unlawful means, it may not be imposed after the lapse of ten years (Article 10), and where a taxpayer fails to file a tax base return within the statutory due date of return, it shall not be imposed after the lapse of seven years (Article 208Du109522, Dec. 23, 2010). In this context, the term "Fraud or other unlawful act" refers to an act that enables the evasion of tax, and, i.e., a deceptive scheme or other active act that significantly makes it impossible or difficult to impose and collect taxes, and where a taxpayer fails to submit a tax base return by the statutory due date of return within the statutory due date of return, it shall be null and void.

(2) We examine the instant case in light of the aforementioned legal principles.

First of all, the evidence mentioned above, Gap evidence and evidence Nos. 13 and 14, and Eul Nos. 1 through 9 (including family identification cards), together with the overall purport of the pleadings, and the following circumstances are considered to have been added. In other words, the non-party company transferring the issue amount of this case to the plaintiff AA rather than the plaintiff UB, and the plaintiff UB also submitted a confirmation to the effect that "the issue amount of this case was transferred to the plaintiff AA because it is difficult to deposit into the corporate account because it was because it was difficult to deposit the issue amount to the corporate account" at the time of the tax investigation, and that the above money belongs to the plaintiff AA, such as the plaintiffs' assertion, the effectiveness due to the market development will belong to the plaintiff AA and the non-party company. And the non-party company did not give any instruction or control over the enforcement of the issue amount of this case transferred by it, the issue amount of this case is not difficult to regard it as the profit of the plaintiff AA.

On the premise of this premise, the above circumstances were as follows, but the key amount of this case was transferred to the personal account of the Plaintiff UB, not the Plaintiff AA, and the Plaintiff AA was completely omitted from the Plaintiff’s income by entering into the account book or corporate tax return. If the Plaintiffs asserted, it would not be likely that the key amount of this case can be included in the calculation of losses as the expense at the time of Plaintiff AA’s corporate tax return and the tax burden would be significantly increased. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to include it in the calculation of losses. However, even though there was no reason not to include it as the corporation’s income, it was omitted, but the Plaintiffs failed to submit any documentary evidence as to the location of use of the key amount in this case despite the request by the tax authorities for explanation by the Plaintiffs, and it is more reasonable to deem the key amount of this case in addition to the fact that the sales amount of the business year reported by Plaintiff AA was OO and the net income amount was merely OO won. In addition, it is reasonable to see that Plaintiff AA intentionally concealed the issue of tax assessment and use of the Plaintiff B’s account.

Therefore, the exclusion period of imposition of the corporate tax of this case is ten years stipulated in Article 26-2 (1) 1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and the disposition of this case is valid as it was made on March 16, 2012 before the lapse of ten years from April 1, 2007, on which the corporate tax of this case can be imposed for the business year of 2006, and there are no defects asserted by the plaintiffs in the disposition of imposition of the income tax of this case.

Ultimately, each of the dispositions of this case is valid.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.