The early appellate court 201 middle 4760

No provision of prior notice of tax investigation shall apply to on-site inspection for the handling of information on tax evasion;

The Defendant did not go to the stage of conducting a tax investigation to which the prior notice provision under the Framework Act on National Taxes applies to the Plaintiff. However, it is nothing more than conducting a "field verification" under Article 3 subparagraph 2 of the Regulations on the Management of Investigation Affairs in order to conduct one-time verification for the handling of tax evasion reporting materials. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant omitted prior notice in the course of conducting a tax

Article 81-7 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2012Guhap992 Value-Added Tax, etc.

United StatesA

Head of the High Tax Office

July 3, 2012

August 21, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On September 1, 201, the Defendant issued to the Plaintiff on September 1, 201, the imposition of KRW 000 for global income tax for the year 2007, KRW 2,383, and KRW 900 for global income tax for the year 2008, KRW 00 for global income tax for the year 2009, KRW 00 for global income tax for the first year 2009, KRW 00 for the second year 2009, KRW 00 for the second year 200 for the second year 200, KRW 00 for the second year 200 for the second year 200, and KRW 00 for the first year 209, and KRW 00 for the second year 200 for the second year 2009, and KRW 10 for the second year 200 for the second year 2010, and each imposition is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff was registered in the name of Nonparty D, an employee, in the case of 'CC household's 'B' and 'CC household' in the name of 'B' and 'B' from 000 O-dong O-dong 00, Yangyang-gu, Yangyang-gu, Yangyang-si (i.e., 'CC household').

B. From July 22, 2011 to August 10, 2011, the Defendant confirmed that the actual business operator of “CC household” was the Plaintiff and omitted 000 won sales from the above two businesses from July 22, 201 to August 10, 201.

C. Accordingly, on September 1, 201, the Defendant issued a disposition against the Plaintiff on ① global income tax of 000 won in 2007, global income tax of 000 won in 2008, global income tax of 000 won in 2009, global income tax of 000 won in 2009, global income tax of 000 won in 2010, global income tax of 1 year in 2009, value-added tax of 2 year in 2009, value-added tax of 00 in 2009, value-added tax of 2 year in 2010, and value-added tax of 00 for 2 year in 2009, value-added tax of 00 for 2 year in 2009, value-added tax of 00 for 2 year in 2009, value-added tax of 00 for 2010 for 2 year in this case.

[Ground of Recognition] The non-satched Facts, Gap 1 through 5, and 9 and 14 (including household numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) On June 2, 2011, the Defendant, upon visiting the Plaintiff’s place of business, omitted prior notice under the Framework Act on National Taxes in the course of conducting a tax investigation, such as taking the sales record data, the output of pre-management records, and the deposit passbook and other business-related documents (hereinafter “instant data”), and reduced the illegality of bringing the said documents without the consent of the Plaintiff.

2) The Defendant: “from July 22, 2011 to August 10, 2011,” notified the Plaintiff of a tax investigation history, but was actually conducting the tax investigation as prescribed in the above paragraph 1; and it violated the provisions of the Framework Act on National Taxes regarding the tax investigation period under the Framework Act on National Taxes.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes shall be as follows.

C. Determination

1) Violation of the prior notification procedure

(d) A tax investigation means the act of asking questions to taxpayers, etc. as necessary for their official duties, investigating relevant documents, books and other things, and to conduct such tax investigation, prior notice procedures for taxpayers should be prior to [Article 81-7(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 11124, Dec. 31, 201; hereinafter referred to as the "former Framework Act on National Taxes"). However, prior notice of these tax investigations is not provided for in Article 81-7(1) of the former Act but provided for in the tax investigation. 1.0.0.0.0.6.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0..0...0..0...0..0...0..0...0..0..0.0..0..0.0..00...0..00...0...00...00....00.....00.....00......0111

2) Gathering unauthorized data;

In addition, it is recognized that the whole purport of the pleading was integrated into the parts of the glst, Eul, and Eul (including household numbers), and the defendant collected the data of this case on June 1, 201 with the consent of the plaintiff on June 1, 2011. Therefore, the prior plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3) Violation of the audit period

As seen earlier, the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant violated Article 81-8 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes on a different premise is without merit, since the defendant's on-site trip as of June 1, 201, and the defendant's on-site confirmation of facts accompanied thereby do not pass through the "on-site verification" rather than the "on-site verification".

3. Conclusion

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