Daejeon District Office of Tax Affairs

Offenders

Daejeon District Prosecutors' Office (Administrative Fines)

Daejeon District Court Order 2019Na21153 dated June 29, 2020

The decision of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

5,492,774 won shall be imposed on an offender of an administrative fine.

1. According to the record, it is recognized that the appellant, while operating the automobile maintenance business, which is a business category obligated to issue cash receipts without registering his/her business, provided the automobile repair services (sales and design) for the period from 2015 to 2017, and received the total amount of KRW 277,463,870 for each transaction, and did not issue cash receipts.

2. The appellant's assertion;

① The appellant did not know that he/she should issue cash receipts. ② Even if he/she knew, the appellant could not issue cash receipts by lending his/her facilities to the ○○ Motor Vehicle Industry Development Bank, etc. ③ most of the sales and gambling businesses were leased part of the facilities of the car maintenance business, and the non-taxation practices were established without any taxation or administrative fine imposed on such type of business, ④ imposition of an administrative fine only on the appellant without any measure against other violators violates equity, and ⑤ imposition of an administrative fine to the appellant is in violation of Article 57(1)1 and 2 of the Motor Vehicle Management Act, rather than imposing an administrative fine on the appellant. Thus, imposing an administrative fine to the appellant is citing the violation of the laws of the automobile management business operator who allowed the appellant to run his/her business in his/her name or rents part of the place of business, and thus, it should be excluded from the substance over form principle. ② Decision on imposition of the first instance court in light of the appellant’s family relationship and economic circumstances

3. Determination

A. The appellant’s assertion that the appellant was unaware of, or was unable to, the fact that he/she should issue a Cash Receipt is that there was no intention or negligence. However, the appellant’s assertion is without merit, since he/she did not confirm the fact that he/she carried on the business and carried on the business without registering the business.

B. We examine the assertion that non-taxation practices have been established, and even if the tax authority recognizes objective facts that have not been taxed for a considerable period of time, it cannot be deemed that there was an explicit or implied public opinion or opinion that does not impose tax due to any special circumstance with the knowledge that the tax authority could impose tax, and therefore, the appellant’s allegation is without merit.

C. Even if any measure is not taken against other violators, the imposition of an administrative fine against the appellant, who is the violator, cannot be deemed unlawful against the principle of equity in taxation. Furthermore, Article 66(1) of the Automobile Management Act provides sanctions against an automobile management businessman who violates Article 57(1) of the Automobile Management Act, and Article 66(a) of the Automobile Management Act provides sanctions against an automobile management businessman, and the illegality of the automobile management businessman cannot be said to be of such circumstance as to exclude the principle

D. However, the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act was amended by Act No. 16108 on December 31, 2018, as of December 31, 2018, and Article 15(1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act prior to the amendment, deleted the provision that a fine for negligence equivalent to 50/100 of the transaction price for which cash receipts have not been issued shall be imposed on a person who violates the obligation under Article 162-3(4) of the Income Tax Act, and Article 81(11)3 of the Income Tax Act (Additional Tax) amended by Act No. 16104, Dec. 31, 2018, when the appellant did not issue cash receipts in violation of Article 162-3(4) of the Income Tax Act, and Article 162-3(1) of the same Act (amended by Act No. 16108, Jan. 1, 2019>

4. Conclusion

The appeal by the appellant is partially accepted in consideration of the fact that the appellant pays unpaid tax, national health insurance premiums, etc. and the purport of the amendment of the statutes, and the decision of the first instance court is modified as ordered by the disposition imposing an administrative fine equivalent to 20/100 of the transaction amount.

Judges Kim Jong-hee (Presiding Judge)