Cho Jae-chul2010 Before 2444 ( October 19, 2010)

If a report is not filed by the deadline for filing the business account, the disposition imposed by excluding penalty tax and special tax reduction and exemption for small and medium enterprises is legitimate.

It is not recognized that the report on the business account was filed by the reporting deadline, and the disposition imposing the comprehensive income tax is legitimate by excluding the relevant additional tax and the special tax reduction and exemption of small and medium enterprises regardless of whether the report was not filed by the reporting deadline.

2011Guhap305 Revocation of taxation

IsaA

○ Head of tax office

April 20, 2011

May 25, 2011

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 global income tax of KRW 26,129,465 against the Plaintiff on June 1, 2010 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From around September 29, 199, the Plaintiff was engaged in the manufacturing business with the trade name of ○○○○○ Dong 1262, 1262, and became a person subject to double-entry bookkeeping under Article 160(3) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9270, Dec. 26, 2007; hereinafter “Act”) from January 1, 2007.

B. On March 31, 2008, the opening and reporting deadline of a business account under Article 160-5(3) of the Act (hereinafter “the filing deadline of this case”), the Defendant issued a disposition to impose an amount of KRW 26,129,465 on the Plaintiff on June 1, 2010, on the ground that the Plaintiff did not report the opening of a business account to the head of the competent district tax office by March 31, 2008, and the opening of a business account was completed on March 27, 2009.

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for review with the Tax Tribunal on July 15, 2010, but the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to dismiss the request on October 19, 2010.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) There is no dispute over the fact that the Plaintiff had completed the opening report of a business account at around March 27, 2009. However, the Plaintiff sent a report on the opening of a business account (hereinafter referred to as the “report”) by mail prior to the expiration of the instant report deadline, and directly posted it to the public service center of the ○○ Tax Office. However, each negligence of the service agency and the public service center, which caused the loss of the said report, and this can be deemed to be a circumstance not attributable to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s report on opening of the business account at around March 27, 2009 should be treated equally as the Plaintiff’s report within the instant report deadline. Accordingly, the instant disposition is unlawful.

2) The Plaintiff uses the same business account before and after the filing deadline of the instant case, and in light of this, it cannot be deemed that there was an intention to file a report within the deadline, and thus, the instant disposition imposing additional tax solely on the fact that the Plaintiff failed to file a report within the deadline is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Additional tax under tax law is an administrative sanction imposed, as prescribed by individual tax law, in cases where a taxpayer violates various duties, such as a return and tax payment, without justifiable grounds, in order to facilitate the exercise of the right to impose taxes and the realization of a tax claim. However, if the taxpayer’s intent or negligence is not unreasonable to believe that the taxpayer’s failure to identify his/her duty is not unreasonable, or if the taxpayer has a private reason determined that the performance of his/her duty is not significantly expected to be difficult, it may not be imposed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Nu14602, May 16, 1997; 2006Du11750, Oct. 23, 2008; 2009Du23747, May 13, 2010; 201Du380, Feb. 38, 2010).

2) In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff’s assertion that no additional tax is imposed on the grounds that there was no intention to file a report within the time limit, among the Plaintiff’s assertion, on the grounds that the Plaintiff did not use the above legal principles and Article 81(9) of the Act, and even if the Plaintiff did not open or report, additional tax shall be imposed. In light of the purport of establishing a business account system to ensure transparency of the transaction system by recording a separate business account with a business operator in the Income Tax Act to open and operate a separate business account (see, e.g., Constitutional Court en banc Order 2007Hun-Ma1191, Mar. 25, 2010).

3) Next, in the instant case, whether there is a justifiable reason for the Plaintiff to impose additional tax on the Plaintiff, i.e., whether or not the Plaintiff’s employee submitted a report by means of sending or inserting the report by mail within the period of time, as alleged by the Plaintiff, or whether or not the report was lost due to reasons not attributable to the Plaintiff, i.e., whether or not this report was sent by registered mail or not sent by ordinary mail, and whether or not this report was sent by the witness’s testimony was sent by the following circumstances, i.e., whether or not this report was sent by registered mail, and whether or not it was sent by ordinary mail, but it was stated that the Plaintiff did not confirm otherwise for 3-4 days after receiving the report by mail to his father. However, it is difficult to acknowledge the portion of the report’s assertion that it was lost by the Plaintiff’s negligence without reaching the ordinary mail delivery agency, and it is difficult to find the Plaintiff’s assertion that the report was lost by the Plaintiff’s management agency.

4) Ultimately, there is no dispute that the Plaintiff did not report the opening of the business account within the filing period of the instant report, and there is no illegality in the disposition of this case imposing additional tax and the exclusion amount of special tax reduction and exemption amount for small and medium enterprises, regardless of whether the Plaintiff had an intention to file a return within the filing period, in the instant case where it cannot

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.