Seoul Administrative Court 2013Guhap54977 ( October 17, 2014)

Seocho 2013west085 (20 March 20, 2013)

Inasmuch as it cannot be readily concluded that the tax base was underreported by an active act, it does not constitute an element to impose an unfair underreporting penalty

Inasmuch as it cannot be readily concluded that the Plaintiff reported the tax base by an active act, the Plaintiff’s tax base report does not fall under the requirement for imposing the penalty tax

Article 47-3 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes

2014Nu43136 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

o

Head of Guro Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2013Guhap54977 decided January 17, 2014

October 16, 2014

October 30, 2014

1. The part of the judgment of the first instance against the plaintiff falling under the subsequent part of the order of revocation shall be revoked.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of the value-added tax for the second period of 2007 imposed on the Plaintiff on September 4, 2012 by OOO(including additional tax), OO(including additional tax) among the disposition of imposition of the value-added tax for the first period of 2008, OO(including additional tax), and OO(including additional tax) among the disposition of imposition of the value-added tax for the second period of 2008.

2. Upon a request made in exchange at the trial for a change, the part of the imposition imposed by the Defendant on July 9, 2014, which exceeds each of the imposition imposed by the OOO members of the imposition imposition of the value-added tax for the first half year of 2009, the imposition of the OO members of the imposition of the value-added tax for the second year of 2009, the imposition of the OO members of the imposition of the value-added tax for the first year of 2010, the imposition of the OO members of the imposition of the value-added tax for the second year of 2010, the imposition of the OO members of the imposition of the value-added tax for the second year of 201, and the imposition of the additional tax for the second year of 201, is revoked.

3. The plaintiff's remaining appeal and claim are dismissed.

4. One-half of the total costs of litigation shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

1. Purport of claim

On September 4, 2012, the Defendant: (a) filed a claim with the Plaintiff for the imposition of value-added tax for one year (including additional tax); (b) KRW 1006; (c) KRW 2007; (d) KRW 10,000; (d) KRW 207; (c) KRW 20,000; (d) KRW 20,000; (d) KRW 10,000; (d) KRW 20,000; (e) KRW 20,000; (e) KRW 10,000; (e) KRW 20,000; (e) KRW 10,000; and (e) KRW 20,000; (e) KRW 20,000; (f) KRW 10,000; (f) KRW 20,000; (f) KRW 20,000; and (f) the Defendant revoked the imposition of additional tax for two years;

2. Purport of appeal

Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the Plaintiff falling under the order of revocation is revoked. Since the Defendant’s judgment against the Plaintiff on September 4, 2012 is revoked, on the two-year period portion of value-added tax (including additional tax), on January 2008, on the part of value-added tax (including additional tax), on the two-year period portion of value-added tax, on the two-year period portion of value-added tax (including additional tax), on the one-year period of value-added tax, on the one-year portion of value-added tax, on the other, on the one-year period of value-added tax, on 2009, on the one-year portion of value-added tax, on the two-year portion of value-added tax, on the one-year period of value-added tax, on the one-year portion of value-added tax, on the one-year portion of value-added tax, on the two-year period of value-added tax, on the one-year portion of value-added tax, on the two-year portion of value-added tax.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's judgment is as follows. Thus, it is accepted by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Parts used for cutting.

Pursuant to the above disposition on July 9, 2014, the Defendant revoked the imposition of the value-added tax on the first term portion of the value-added tax, on the second term portion of the value-added tax, on the second term in 2009, on the first term portion of the value-added tax, on the second term in 2010, on the second term in 2010, on the second term in 2010, on the first term in 2010, on the first term in 2010, on the part of the Plaintiff, and issued a new imposition of the value-added tax on the same amount of the value-added tax for the first term in 207 or 208 or 209 or 2010 or 209 or 201 or 209 or 201 or 209 or 201 or 201 or 209 or 201 or 201 or 201 or 201 or 2010.

○ From the fourth bottom to the fifth 1st eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth:

3) The tax payment notice of each of the instant claims related to defects does not clearly state the basis for calculation of the principal tax and does not stipulate the type, amount, and basis for calculation of the additional tax. Therefore, each of the instant dispositions is unlawful as they are defective in the tax payment notice.

Then, “(s)(s)(10)(s)(5)(s)(s)(s)(11 and 12(s)(s)(s)(1 through 12(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(13-13(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(

○ The possibility of being able to receive the fourth reduction from the bottom of the 10th place is as "the possibility of being received".

○ The last eth to 16th eth eth eth eth is as follows.

3) In a case where the principal tax and the additional tax are to be imposed along with a single tax payment notice, the relevant tax amount and the basis for calculation thereof should be stated in the tax payment notice separately. In a case where multiple types of additional tax are to be imposed together, the relevant tax amount and the basis for calculation thereof should be stated separately. Unless special circumstances exist, the relevant tax disposition is unlawful (Supreme Court en banc Decision 2010Du12347 Decided October 18, 2012).

B) Comprehensively taking account of the purport of evidence evidence No. 1-2 of each disposition of this case, with respect to the principal tax for February 2, 2007 through January 201, 201 among each disposition of this case, the tax amount and the basis for calculation of the principal tax are stated in the tax payment notice. With respect to the additional tax for January 2, 2009 through January 201, 201, the relevant tax amount and the basis for calculation by type of additional tax are stated in the tax payment notice. However, with respect to the additional tax for February 2, 2007 through February 2, 2008, the fact that only the total amount are stated, but the basis for calculation is not specified by type of additional tax. Therefore, among each disposition of this case, the defect in each of the additional tax for February 2, 2007 through January 209 through 2011 can not be deemed to exist in the tax payment notice, and each part of the additional tax for February 208 through 2007.

The plaintiff's assertion in this part is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder is without merit.

4) As to the assertion regarding unjust underreporting penalty

A) Article 47-3 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 9911, Jan. 1, 2010; Articles 201 through 2011; hereinafter the same shall apply); Article 47-3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 11124, Dec. 31, 201; hereinafter the same shall apply); Article 27-3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22038, Feb. 18, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides for an unreasonable method or method of underreporting for the purpose of imposing additional taxes for the purpose of causing a person liable to pay taxes for tax evasion; Articles 27-3 and 47 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23592, Feb. 2, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply).

B) In light of the following circumstances revealed by comprehensively taking account of the facts and the purport of the entire argument as seen earlier, i.e., ① there is no value-added tax that can be evaded or deducted by means of appropriating processing expenses due to the substantial supply of goods, unlike the processing transaction; ② It cannot be deemed that the instant tax invoice was submitted to the tax authority by the submission of the tax invoice to the tax authority, and thus, there is no tax that makes it impossible or significantly difficult for the tax authority to impose and collect by the tax authority. The mere fact that the instant tax invoice issued through a disguised transaction was submitted to the tax authority, it cannot be readily concluded that the Plaintiff filed a return of the tax base by such active acts as making it difficult to discover the taxation requirements for the national tax with the intent to evade tax or falsifying false facts. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s tax base return does not constitute the requirement for imposing additional tax for underreporting. Accordingly, each disposition of the instant tax for the first period to 2009 through 11, 2011 is unlawful.

C) Meanwhile, in the case of each value-added tax on January 2009 through January 1, 201, since the tax base reported by the Plaintiff falls short of the tax base to be reported under the tax laws, an additional tax for general underreporting should be imposed. If the additional tax for each of the above value-added tax is to be added to the principal tax for each of the above value-added tax, the additional tax for the first term portion of the value-added tax for 2009 shall be OO, OO, the additional tax for the second term portion of the value-added tax for 209, the additional tax for the first term portion of the value-added tax for 2010, OO, and the additional tax for the second term portion of the value-added tax for 201, since there is no dispute between the parties to the tax, each of the above additional tax for the first term portion of the penalty for each of the above value-added tax for 209 through 11, 2011 shall be revoked.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remainder is without merit.

5) Sub-committee

Among each of the dispositions in this case, imposition of the principal tax for the second term through one year 2007 (OO for the second term of February 2007, 1908, OO for the second term of January 2008, 2008, OO for the second term of February 2009, 209, OO for the second term of February 2009, O for the second term of January 2009, O for the second term of February 2010, 200, OO for the second term of February 2010, 201, and OO for the first term of January 200, 209, and each of the imposition of the principal tax for the second term of one year from January 209, 209 is legitimate, but the above imposition of the penalty tax for each of the imposition of the penalty tax for the second term of between 207 and 208, and each of the imposition of the penalty tax for the second term of one year.

(c)

2. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim shall be accepted within the scope of recognition as above and the remainder of the claim shall be dismissed for lack of reasonable grounds. Since the part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the court of first instance is partially unfair, the plaintiff's appeal shall be partially accepted, the part against the plaintiff falling under the order to revoke under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the part against the plaintiff falling under the order to revoke under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the part in excess of each principal tax (including additional tax) shall be revoked from September 4, 2007 to February 2008 from September 4, 2012, and the part in excess of each principal tax (including additional tax) shall be revoked from the judgment of the court of first instance as to the change in exchange at the request for a change from the court of first instance. The part in the disposition of imposition of additional tax on July 9, 201 and each of the above legitimate penalty taxes on January 209 to 1, 2011 shall be revoked (the judgment of the court of first instance as to September 201).