Daejeon District Court-2015-Gu Partnership-105963 ( November 30, 2016)

Whether monthly travel expenses constitute non-taxable income

Whether monthly travel expenses (as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance) constitute non-taxable income as "wages of the nature of compensation for actual expenses prescribed by Presidential Decree" prescribed in subparagraph 3 (i) of Article 12 of the Income Tax Act.

Article 12 subparagraph 3 of the former Income Tax Act

2017Nu1041 Revocation of revocation of the imposition of earned income tax.

00 00 et al.

00. Other seven persons

Daejeon District Court 2015Guhap105963 ( November 30, 2016)

May 18, 2017

July 6, 2017

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. Each of the details of the attached Form 2 imposed by the Defendants against the Plaintiffs is stated.

The imposition of global income tax shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's explanation on the instant case shall be from No. 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance to the third party.

The term "employee subject to payment" is "employee subject to payment", "General, food, accommodation, transportation expenses" (general, food, transportation expenses), "employee subject to payment", "employee subject to payment" in the 11th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th, and "employee subject to payment" are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th, and as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the

2. The addition;

3) Determination on other allegations

The plaintiffs asserted to the effect that, even if monthly travel expenses of this case are subject to taxation, the tax authorities are not imposed on the monthly travel expenses of this case for the last 30 years from the time aa to the time of Section A (30) is unlawful since the tax authorities’ imposition of income tax retroactively on the monthly travel expenses of this case violates the previous interpretation or practice by the tax authorities.

The health class and the practice of non-taxation under Article 18(3)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes is unreasonable to accept a wrong interpretation or practice as legitimate to a general taxpayer who is not a specific taxpayer, and to trust such interpretation or practice.

tax law means the extent that it is not recognized, and the tax authority's act in a tax law

If the practice of such non-taxation is established, no taxation shall be imposed on any matter for a long time.

In addition, there is an objective fact that the tax authority did not have such an objective fact, and the tax authority's own matters

Recognizing that a taxation can be imposed, there needs to be an intention not to impose tax, and such an intention externally or implicitly is to be expressed. The foregoing public opinion’s expression of non-taxation can also be recognized in cases where a state of non-taxation continues over a long period of time, and such expression of public opinion can be seen as an implied expression of intent by the tax authority’s purport not to impose tax on the matter (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da958, Sept. 9, 201

209Du23419, etc.

We examine this case in light of the above legal principles. The principal basis for the plaintiffs' assertion is that BBBB imposes taxation on the monthly travel expenses of this case from the time of the past Aaa to the time of this case.

The fact that it was not a mere omission of taxation, but it is deemed as a basis for non-taxable practice.

In addition, it is difficult to establish rules or authoritative interpretation by the tax authorities relating to travel expenses, etc. for the payment of company travel expenses.

Accordingly, expenses that are deemed necessary for the performance of duties can be treated as non-taxation.

1) Article 18 (Standards for Interpretation of Tax-Related Acts and Prohibition of Retroactive Taxation)

(3) Once any construction of the tax-related Act or practices in tax administration has been generally accepted by the taxpayers, any act or computation according to such a construction or practice shall be considered to be correct, and no tax shall be retroactively imposed by a new construction or practice.

In other cases, the tax authority’s explicit statement that the monthly travel expenses of this case do not include wage and salary income in this case, or there is no evidence to support the establishment of non-taxable practice on the premise of such implied declaration of intent or on the premise thereof. Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ assertion on this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.