logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016. 08. 16. 선고 2016누37586 판결
현금수납 진료비 내역을 고의로 삭제하고 차명계좌에 입금하는 등의 부당한 방법으로 과세표준을 과소신고한 것으로 봄이 타당[국승]
Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit

Seoul Administrative Court 2015Guhap5897 (2016.05)

Title

It is reasonable to see that the tax base was underreported by unlawful means, such as intentionally deleting the details of cash receipt medical expenses and depositing them into the borrowed account.

Summary

(The same as the judgment of the first instance) With the intention to evade tax, such as continuously omitting a return for tax evasion over five years in preparation for a tax investigation, and intentionally omitting a cash sales portion from the original receipt fees entered in the electronic set, making it significantly difficult to impose and collect taxes, and thus, the application of an unfair under-reported additional tax is legitimate.

Related statutes

Additional tax for underreporting Article 47-3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Cases

2016Nu37586 global income and revocation of disposition

Plaintiff and appellant

AA

Defendant, Appellant

XX Head of tax office

Judgment of the first instance court

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2015Guhap58997 decided February 5, 2016

Conclusion of Pleadings

June 28, 2016

Imposition of Judgment

August 16, 2016

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The decision of the first instance court shall be revoked. The defendant's disposition of imposing additional tax on the plaintiff on May 2, 2013 on the taxable period stated in the Schedule "attached List" column for the attached Table "period for the plaintiff" column for the attached list shall be revoked in all the parts exceeding the amount stated in the "reasonable amount of plaintiff's assertion" column.

Reasons

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the deletion of the part of the first instance court No. 6, No. 8, and Article 27-2, "Article 27-2," "Article 27," "Article 27," "Article 9," "Article 5," and "Article 1," "Article 9," and "Article 1," and "Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The addition;

Article 47-3 (2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes provides that an amount equivalent to 40/100 of the amount calculated by multiplying the ratio of the underreported tax base by the calculated tax amount shall be added to the payable tax amount or deducted from the refundable tax amount. The meaning of "unfair method" under Article 47-2 (2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes is defined as "the method prescribed by Presidential Decree as violating the duty to report the tax base or tax amount of national tax on the basis that the taxpayer conceals or disguises all or part of the fact that serves as the basis for calculating the tax base or tax amount of national tax," and Article 27 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23592, Feb. 2, 2012; hereinafter the same shall apply) upon delegation refers to any of the following methods:

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

arrow