Cho High Court Decision 2012west005 (No. 31, 2012)

Since the effect of the act after the statutory reporting deadline has not been changed, it does not constitute grounds for filing a subsequent claim for correction.

Since a tax invoice is prepared differently from the facts, and thus the transaction or act on necessary expenses after the legal return deadline of the Plaintiff’s global income tax has changed its validity, the rejection disposition rendered on the ground that the Plaintiff’s grounds for filing a request for correction do not constitute the grounds for filing

2012Guhap27909 Revocation of revocation of a request for rectification

KimA

Head of Yongsan Tax Office

November 16, 2012

December 7, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The part concerning the global income tax for the year 2002 through 2005 shall be revoked among the disposition of refusal to request correction against the plaintiff on August 23, 201.

1. Circumstances of dispositions;

A. In around 2002, the Plaintiff leased a place of business located in Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government OOOB from KimB and operated a photographer.

B. When paying rent to KimB, the Plaintiff received a tax invoice of an amount less than the actual rent paid under mutual agreement, and returned and paid the comprehensive income tax from 2002 to the Defendant by including it in the necessary expenses.

C. On the other hand, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office conducted a tax investigation on KimB on October 2010, and notified the Defendant of the data on the under-reported real estate rental income by KimB. The Defendant: (a) deemed that under-reported sales by issuing a tax invoice of an amount less than the fact by KimB constituted this fraud, other unlawful act; (b) applied the exclusion period of ten years; (c) notified the KimB of the value-added tax and the global income tax for the year 2002 through 2009; and (d) added the rental tax for the year 2007 through 2009 to the necessary expenses; and (c) added the comprehensive income tax for the Plaintiff by correcting and refunding the comprehensive income tax.

D. In addition, on July 5, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a request for correction by requesting the Defendant to include the underreported rent amount for global income tax for the year 2002 through 2006 in the necessary expenses. On August 23, 2011, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s request for correction on the ground that the Plaintiff does not constitute a ground for filing a request for correction under Article 45-2(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes. However, on August 23, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a subsequent civil petition for grievance with the Defendant for the same content as the above request for correction, and the Defendant included the underreported rent amount for global income tax for the year 2006 within the exclusion period of imposition in the necessary expenses, and the relevant tax amount was corrected and refunded (hereinafter “the part regarding global income tax for the year 2002 through 205”).

[Grounds for Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, and the whole purport of the pleading

2. Whether the rejection disposition of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The defendant added the amount of rent under-reported by the plaintiff to the real estate rental income of KimB, and corrected and notified the tax related thereto, and the plaintiff's request for correction within 2 months from the date of knowing that the cause occurred falls under the grounds for follow-up correction under Article 45-2 (2) 2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes.

(b) Related statutes;

Paper in the Appendix

C. Determination

1) Article 45-2(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides for the relief of taxpayers’ rights by allowing taxpayers to file a request for reduction upon the occurrence of a certain later cause after the establishment of tax liability. In particular, Article 25-2(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides for the effect of the transaction or government office related to the first request for correction, the return of tax base and amount of tax, or the first determination or rectification of the tax base and amount of national tax by the statutory deadline for filing the return, or the person in receipt of the determination or rectification of the tax base and amount of tax, to change the ownership of the income or other taxable object to a third party, or the reason prescribed by Presidential Decree arises after the statutory deadline for filing the national tax return expires. Furthermore, Article 25-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides for the effect of the first request for correction, the return or rectification of the tax base and amount of tax, and the first determination or rectification of the tax base and amount of tax if the permission or other disposition becomes cancelled due to unavoidable cause (Article 1).

2) In light of the above facts and the above relevant provisions, the plaintiff, (i) agreed with KimB to receive a tax invoice of less than the actual amount with respect to the rent corresponding to its necessary expenses, and (ii) at the time of reporting global income tax, the amount on the tax account was included in the necessary expenses. (ii) The defendant's correction of KimB was merely correct the amount of the income under-reported by KimB without accompanying the change of the fact-finding, and it is difficult to regard the plaintiff's income as the correction of the plaintiff's income to be changed to KimB. (iii) Each subparagraph of Article 25-2 (2) 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes enacted upon delegation under Article 45-2 (2) 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides the type of the subsequent request for correction, and the effect of the transaction or act based on the tax base and calculation amount is premised on the change of the plaintiff's tax base after the statutory due date of return, and the change of the plaintiff's tax return of the global income tax or the changed tax return term of Article 2.

3. Conclusion

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