early 209 Heavy3683 ( December 09, 2009)

If the representative is retired at the time of receipt of the notice of change in the amount of income

Even if the representative has already retired at the time of receipt of notice of change in the amount of income and it is practically impossible to withhold from the bonus disposition, such circumstance does not extinguish the obligation of withholding taxes

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of each earned income tax of KRW 17,403,170 on February 18, 2009 against the Plaintiff, KRW 14,849,80 on 2004, KRW 14,512,030 on 205, KRW 6,218,80 on 2006, KRW 4,508,70 on 207, shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 원고는 강원도 철원군 @@읍 BB리 708-25를 본점 소재지로 택시 운수업을 영위하는 법인으로, 2003년 1기부터 2007년 1기까지의 부가가치세 과세기간 중 원고 소속 택시기사들이 개인적으로 부담한 연료비 483,336,000원에 대한 매입세금계산서를 원고 명의로 수취한 후, 매입세액을 매출세액에서 공제하고, 손금에 산입하여 부가가치세 및 법인세를 신고하였다.

B. As a result of the tax investigation conducted by the National Tax Service on a taxi company by the National Tax Service, when it was verified that the fuel cost spent by an individual who belongs to the corporation was unfairly appropriated as the transportation cost of the company and the input tax deduction of value-added tax was made, the defendant recommended the plaintiff to file a revised tax return on January 13, 2007, and the plaintiff filed a revised tax return on December 7, 2007.

C. On August 18, 2008, the Defendant conducted a tax investigation with respect to the Plaintiff, and conducted a tax investigation with respect to the Plaintiff, 431,216,00 of the remainder fuel cost, excluding the amount reported by the Plaintiff, out of 483,36,00 of the fuel cost borne by the Plaintiff’s employee individually by the Plaintiff, and imposed KRW 218,531,00 on the Plaintiff’s total corporate tax by adding the total amount of value-added tax sales and corporate tax revenue to the total amount of KRW 112,426,470 of the Plaintiff’s total amount of value-added tax plus KRW 96,395,660 of the value-added tax. On February 18, 2009, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of a change in the amount of income (the Defendant did not dispose of the Plaintiff’s income tax with respect to the Plaintiff’s total amount of income subject to a disposition of withholding taxes under Article 86 of the National Tax Collection Act).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 5 through 7, Eul 1 to 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The legality of disposition.

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff has a considerable amount of 18 times the capital, and thus, is not capable of paying taxes as a rehabilitation corporation for which a decision of commencement was made upon filing an application for commencing a rehabilitation procedure with the court. If the defendant disposed of the amount omitted in sales, etc. as bonus, it is improper to impose taxes on the plaintiff who was the representative director of the plaintiff, and since thisS and KimA were all after the retirement of the defendant, the disposition of this case on the ground that the plaintiff was not liable to withhold taxes due to the lack of withholding obligation on the plaintiff.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

It is reasonable to view that bonus disposed of to the representative of a corporation under the Corporate Tax Act falls under Class A earned income under the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9897 of Dec. 31, 2009). Accordingly, since a withholding agent bears the obligation to pay income tax, the disposition of this case ordering the defendant to pay income tax on the amount disposed of as bonus to the plaintiff is lawful.

Even if the Plaintiff had already retired from ES and KimA at the time of receiving notice of change in the amount of income, and the Plaintiff was practically unable to withhold the income tax from the above ES and KimA, such circumstance does not extinguish the Plaintiff’s withholding duty (see Supreme Court Decision 95Nu9365, Oct. 12, 1995). Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion denying the Plaintiff’s withholding duty on the ground of the foregoing circumstance is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.