Appropriateness of fraud and other unlawful act

In the case of failure to intentionally report the value-added tax on rental income after making a business registration of an inn business even though it is an innel rental business operator, it falls under the exclusion period of 10 years.

The exclusion period of the imposition of national taxes under Article 26-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of value-added tax against the Plaintiff on December 1, 2004 is revoked in entirety as of February 6, 1997, KRW 6,438,560, KRW 7,691,020 for the first term of 1998, KRW 7,731,700 for the second term of 198, and KRW 13,752,510 for the first term of 199.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From August 1997 to January 2000, the Plaintiff leased the Plaintiff’s ○○○○○○○○○○○○○, Seoul, ○○-dong, ○○○○○○○○ (hereinafter “instant ○○”)’s lease deposit with the private ○○, with the amount of KRW 50 million and KRW 8 million monthly rent.

B. However, the Plaintiff did not report and pay value-added tax on the rental income of the her mother, instead of having the Plaintiff report and pay value-added tax on the her mother's business as if the Plaintiff had registered the business under the name of the Plaintiff and directly operated the her mother's business.

C. On December 9, 2004, the Defendant calculated, and decided and notified the amount of value-added tax from February 1997 to January 1, 1999, as stated in the purport of the claim, even though five years have passed retroactively from the date of imposition against the Plaintiff.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Defendant issued the instant disposition only after the lapse of five years from the date on which the pertinent national tax can be assessed. The Plaintiff filed a false report on the amount of rent income as a site under tax-related Acts, and cannot be deemed as a case where the period of exclusion is extended to ten years, on the ground that it cannot be deemed as a case where the period of exclusion is extended to ten years. Thus, the instant disposition was unlawful since it imposed the exclusion period of the imposition of national tax.

(b) Related statutes;

Framework Act on National Tax

Article 26-2 (Period for Excluding Assessment of National Taxes) (1) National taxes may not be levied after the expiration of the period provided for in the following subparagraphs:

1. Where a taxpayer evades a national tax, or receives a refund or deduction by fraudulent or other unlawful means, for ten years from the date on which the national tax is assessable;

2. If the taxpayer fails to file a written tax base return within the legal return term, for seven years from the day on which the national tax is assessable;

3. If it does not fall under subparagraphs 1 and 2 above, for five years from the day on which the national tax is assessable; and

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) As above, from August 197 to January 2000, the Plaintiff leased the instant franchise to ○○○, and there was an inn business license in the future of the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff did not enter into a lease agreement without filing a business registration under the name of the Plaintiff.

(2) Therefore, after renting the instant her mother, the private ○○ paid monthly rent of eight million won during the lease period to the Plaintiff while operating a business under the name of the Plaintiff and operating an inn.

If a taxpayer under Article 26-2 subparagraph 1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes evades national tax, or is granted a refund or deduction by fraudulent or other unlawful means, the limitation period of national tax is extended to ten years from the date on which the national tax can be imposed, and the term "Fraud or other unlawful acts" refers to a deceptive scheme which makes it impossible or considerably difficult to impose and collect tax, or other unlawful acts (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do5818, Nov. 12, 2004). According to the above facts, even though the plaintiff leased the mother of this case to another person and received monthly monthly payment as a rental business operator, it constitutes a case where the plaintiff intentionally conceals the rental revenue of the mother of this case by having the lessee report and pay the value-added tax on the business revenue of the mother of this case under the name of the plaintiff, and failure to report it constitutes a case of evasion of national tax by fraudulent or other unlawful means under Article 26-2 (1) 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act.

Therefore, since the exclusion period of the disposition of this case was extended to 10 years, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit and the disposition of this case is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit.