Cho Jae-2015-China3462 (Law No. 22, 2015.09)

A disposition that refuses to pay a reward for tax evasion;

In light of the fact that it is reasonable to regard the tax evasion based on the basis of calculation for the reporting on tax evasion as the amount of tax refund refunded to the claimant from the person subject to the reporting whose national revenue has been substantially increased, etc., there is no error of refusing to apply for the payment of the reporting on tax evasion

Article 84-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes / Payment of rewards under Article 65-4 (1) of Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes

District Court 2015Guhap1699

Fixed00

00. Head of tax office

July 19, 2016

September 13, 2016

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The defendant's rejection disposition against the plaintiff on June 10, 2015 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff entered into a pre-sale agreement with Kim 00-si 00 00-Do 337 m24 m2 (hereinafter “instant land”), which is owned by the Plaintiff, on the basis of the pre-sale agreement on April 26, 2002, and Kim 00 made a provisional registration on the instant land on the ground of the pre-sale agreement on April 26, 2002.

B. Since then, on November 1, 2010, the 1,718 square meters of the instant land were expropriated as of November 0, 2010, and the Plaintiff received totaling KRW 256,41,500 compensation (hereinafter “instant compensation”). Accordingly, the Plaintiff reported and paid KRW 25,445,630 of the transfer income tax by using the instant compensation as the transfer value.

C. Kim 00 filed a lawsuit claiming the return of unjust enrichment against the Plaintiff, which the Plaintiff received the instant compensation even though he owned the instant land, as the District Court Decision 00Da2012Gahap0000, and as a result, the Plaintiff became final and conclusive to return the instant compensation to Kim 00 (Seoul High Court Decision 2013Na000, Supreme Court Decision 2014Da0000, hereinafter referred to as “related civil cases”).

D. On May 2, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a claim for correction to the Defendant for refund of capital gains tax already reported and paid by the Plaintiff in relation to the instant compensation. At the same time, the Plaintiff filed a tax evasion report stating that “Gim00 received the instant compensation and omitted a tax return thereon,” and submitted the judgment of the relevant private case (hereinafter “instant report on tax evasion”).

E. The Defendant deemed that the instant compensation belongs to Kim 00 according to the final judgment of the instant case, and determined and notified KRW 82,936,244 of the transfer income tax for the year 2010 and KRW 3,512,121 of the special rural development tax for the year 2010, and refunded KRW 25,445,630 of the transfer income tax for the Plaintiff for the year 2010.

F. As Kim 00 did not pay capital gains tax, the Defendant seized KRW 309,843,503 deposited by the Seoul Central District Court 2014 Gold 00 as the principal deposit and collected KRW 90,079,170 as delinquent tax amount.

G. On June 3, 2015, the Plaintiff paid a monetary reward of KRW 13,511,883 to the Defendant with respect to the instant report on tax evasion.

Although the Defendant filed an application for the payment of monetary rewards on June 10, 2015, the Defendant rejected the payment of monetary rewards under Article 84-2 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 13552, Dec. 15, 2015; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Article 65-4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26946, Feb. 5, 2016; hereinafter the same shall apply) (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

H. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on June 30, 2015, but was dismissed on September 2, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1, 2-1, 2-2, Eul evidence 1-3 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Plaintiff informed the Defendant of the omission in the return of capital gains tax and the deposit money for repayment, which is the property of Kim Hong-min, the Defendant ought to pay a monetary reward to the Plaintiff in accordance with Article 84-2 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 65-4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes. Therefore, the instant disposition

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Article 84-2(1)1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes provides that a person who provides "important data to calculate the tax evasion amount or the amount of tax unjustly refunded or deducted may be paid a monetary reward of up to 2 billion won." Paragraph 2(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "the material or account book that contains specific facts such as the transaction partner, transaction date or transaction period, transaction items, transaction volume and amount, etc. that can verify the tax evasion amount or the amount of tax unjustly refunded or deducted," "specific information that can confirm the location of material falling under item (a)" (b), "other material that can be recognized as important material such as methods of tax evasion or illegally refunded or deducted, details, size, etc." (c) and Article 65-4(11)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "the material related to the tax evasion amount or the illegal return or deduction, etc. (Article 8(2)1 of the former Enforcement Decree on "tax evasion" (Article 4) and exemption)2).

The purpose of the Framework Act on National Taxes is to provide a reward to a person who provides important data in calculating the tax evasion amount, which is to enable the tax authority to collect the tax evasion amount by easily collecting the tax evasion amount without any cost and effort if the tax authority is provided with specific data that can verify the fact of tax evasion under the realistic circumstances that make it impossible for him/her to investigate whether he/she is liable for the tax evasion amount. Furthermore, the tax authority can create a climate of tax evasion in good faith if information about tax evasion is activated. Therefore, the "important data subject to a reward" should include specific data that can confirm the application of the fact of tax evasion by comparing the fact of tax evasion as stipulated in Article 84-2 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 65-4 (11) of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes. If the provided data is merely the point of the possibility of tax evasion, the presentation of conical suspicion, and the collection of simple wind, it is difficult for the tax authority to prove that it is difficult to do so, and thus, it does not constitute 130.1.5.1.

2) In full view of the purport of the entire arguments as to the instant case, in order to refund capital gains tax paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant in the amount of KRW 25,445,630, the Defendant filed a request for correction and submitted the judgment of the relevant civil case as essential material to accept the Plaintiff’s request for correction. On May 2014, the Defendant could have confirmed that the instant compensation belongs to a person, not the Plaintiff, Kim 00, not the Plaintiff, through the Plaintiff’s request for correction and the judgment of the relevant civil case. The judgment of the relevant civil case submitted by the Plaintiff is not only the data that the general public can peruse and copy on the Internet site of the Supreme Court, but also the documents that the Defendant can obtain through the cooperation of the prosecution pursuant to the relevant statutes, barring any special circumstance.

According to these facts, the judgment of the relevant civil case submitted by the plaintiff to the defendant is not only the plaintiff but also the defendant can be easily obtained. When the plaintiff files a request for correction of transfer income tax, the defendant can be identified who is the owner of the compensation of this case, and thus, even without the report of tax evasion, it can be sufficiently anticipated that the disposition of tax payment against Kim 00 was made. Thus, in light of the purport of the payment of monetary rewards as seen earlier, it is difficult to view the plaintiff's information or material as important material

Therefore, the disposition of this case rejecting the plaintiff's claim for monetary rewards is just and without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as there is no ground.