An affirmative act, such as the preparation of a multi-use contract, is ten years of exclusion period for imposition, and it cannot be deemed that it is anticipated that it would be subject to a disposition for recognition due to underreporting.

Unlike the original contract, it cannot be deemed that the amount of sales revenue stated in the multi-unit contract, which is less than the actual sales revenue amount, has been appropriated in the books, which constitutes fraudulent means or other illegal acts, and thus, the exclusion period for imposition is 10 years, but it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff's representative is expected to receive the disposition of sales revenue as the representative of the plaintiff because the person to whom the profit accrued from the company

2010Guhap4552 Revocation of Corporate Tax Imposition Disposition, etc.

XX Shipping Corporation

Head of Yongsan Tax Office

May 13, 2011

June 15, 2011

1. The defendant's disposition of notifying the plaintiff of the change in the amount of bonus in the representative disposal amount of 576,437,730 won as of April 1, 2009 and the disposition of notifying the change in the amount of bonus in the representative disposal amount of 439,648,592 as of July 2, 2009 shall be revoked.

2. All remaining claims of the Plaintiff are dismissed.

3. 3/4 of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

The disposition of Paragraph 1 and the defendant against the plaintiff, the disposition of imposition of KRW 451,019,780 of corporate tax for the business year 1999, the disposition of imposition of KRW 22,967,598 of the value-added tax for April 1, 2009, and the disposition of imposition of KRW 303,851,756 of corporate tax for the business year 2001, respectively, shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, a corporation that runs a cargo transport business, etc., newly built ten households, namely, Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 000-00 and 000-00 above ground, and then sold each of the five households, namely, 2,232,00,000 won (excluding value-added tax) around 199 and then appropriated each of the five households, namely, hereinafter referred to as "five households of this case") in the account book, and then reported and paid the corporate tax and value-added tax accordingly.

B. Around February 2009, the Defendant conducted a tax investigation with the Plaintiff, and based on which the Plaintiff prepared a different contract from the original contract while selling each of the instant housing, the Defendant discovered the fact that the Plaintiff reported and paid the corporate tax and value-added tax by appropriating the sales revenue in the account book less than KRW 1,068,000 (excluding value-added tax) than the actual sales revenue.

C. Accordingly, the Defendant included the sales revenue amount under-calculated in the calculation of the corporate tax income amount and included it in the calculation of the value-added tax base, and on April 8, 2009, considered the Plaintiff as the representative director for the business year 1999, the corporate tax of 320,60,050,050, the corporate tax of 1999, the value-added tax of 22,967,598, the value-added tax of 1999, the amount of 271,271, 84,357,420, and the amount of 663,30,000,000, and the amount of 511,50,000,000 for the portion of 199, and notified the changes in the income amount for each business year for each business year to be reverted.

D. After that, each of the above dispositions was revised several times through the plaintiff's request for correction, objection, the defendant's ex officio correction, etc. (as the above correction was made, imposition of KRW 451,019,780 of corporate tax in April 1, 2009 for the business year 199, and KRW 303,851,756 of corporate tax in July 2, 2009 for the business year 303,851,756 won in April 1, 2009, and imposition of KRW 22,967,598 of value-added tax in April 1, 199, and "the imposition disposition of this case" was combined, and "the disposition of this case shall be imposed for 576,437,730 won in April 1, 209, and the disposition of this case shall be imposed for 405,209,209."

E. The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with each of the dispositions of this case, filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on September 1, 2009 on April 30, 2009, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on September 7, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The primary argument

In order to prevent the sale of housing units, the Plaintiff prepared a registration contract stating the sale price less than the actual sale price in accordance with the transaction practices at the time, and reported the corporate tax and value-added tax base on the basis thereof, and did not engage in fraudulent means or other unlawful acts that make it impossible or considerably difficult to impose and collect taxes by submitting the registration contract to the tax office, etc., and thus, it is difficult to view the Plaintiff’s above act as falling under “where the taxpayer evades national taxes by fraudulent or other unlawful acts” under Article 26-2(1)1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 911 of Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply). In this case, the period of exclusion from the imposition of national taxes should return to five years as provided in Article 26-2(1)3 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes. Accordingly, each disposition of this case was made after five years from the date on which national taxes can be imposed.

2) Preliminary assertion

Even though the exclusion period for taxation of the corporate tax and value-added tax of this case is recognized as the act of hiding the plaintiff's income by concealing the plaintiff's income and evading the corporate tax and value-added tax, it is difficult to view that the exclusion period for taxation of the income tax of this case is extended to 10 years as stipulated in Article 26-2 (1) 1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, since it is difficult to expect the plaintiff's income concealed as above, as the representative director of the plaintiff company, Jung-A, the representative director of the plaintiff company, was out of the country, and it is not known that he received the disposition as the plaintiff's representative, and it was conducted in order to evade the income tax to be imposed. Thus, the exclusion period for taxation of the income tax of this case due to the recognition of the exclusion period for taxation, at least five years as stipulated in Article 26-2 (1) 3 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, since

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

1) As to the main argument

A) “Fraud or other unlawful act” under Article 26-2(1)1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes can be seen as meaning “Fraud or other unlawful act” under Article 9(1) of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (amended by Act No. 8138, Dec. 30, 2006; hereinafter the same). “Fraud or other unlawful act” under Article 9(1) of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act refers to deception or other active act that makes it impossible or considerably difficult to impose and collect taxes, and it does not constitute mere failure to file a tax return under the tax law or filing a false tax return without accompanying any other act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do3797, Feb. 14, 2003; 2001Do3797, Feb. 14, 2003); however, if it is difficult to impose and collect taxes at the time of filing a final tax return with the Supreme Court, it can be found that active or 970.

B) In light of the above legal principles, taxpayers of corporate tax or value-added tax with the period of 10 years calculated and paid the tax base and tax amount based on the value stated in the account book, and there is no obligation to separately submit the source documentary evidence, such as the contract document. In such a case, it can be seen that fraudulent act or false issuance of tax invoice is a eficiencies or other active act that makes it impossible or considerably difficult to impose taxes. Furthermore, the Plaintiff also imposed corporate tax and value-added tax on the books that are less than the actual amount of sales revenue on the account book than the original contract, and imposed corporate tax and value-added tax on the basis that it is difficult to calculate the amount of sales revenue under the 6th anniversary of the initial contract, and it is also difficult to view that there was an omission of the tax base and value-added tax on the 6th anniversary of the initial contract, and that the Plaintiff did not have any error in the exclusion period of imposition of corporate tax and value-added tax on the 6th anniversary of the initial contract.

2) As to the conjunctive argument

A) Under the provisions of the Corporate Tax Act, the amount of income disposed of as a result of the recognition of the representative of a corporation is deemed to have been paid on the date when the notice of change in the amount of income was received, but this is merely a legal fiction rather than a payment to the representative in reality. In order to establish the obligation to collect the source of a corporation that received the above notice of change in amount of income, the obligation to pay income tax must be deemed to have been paid at the time when the above notice of change in amount of income was received. If the obligation to collect the source of the corporation was already extinguished due to the degree of the exclusion period for imposition of income tax, the obligation to withhold income tax cannot be established. Thus, the subsequent notice of change in amount of income is unlawful (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du20959, Jan. 28, 2010). Meanwhile, if the representative of a corporation conceals the amount of income by appropriating the amount of income on the books, it cannot be deemed to have been found to have been obtained as a fraudulent act in accordance with Article 27(10.2).

B) In light of the above legal principles, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s act of understating the sales revenue amount on the account book after preparing a contract for the sale of each of the housing in this case can be seen as an act to evade corporate tax and value-added tax by concealing the Plaintiff’s income in light of the circumstances. It is difficult to see that the Plaintiff’s representative director at the time was released from the concealed Plaintiff’s income, and the Plaintiff’s representative director at the time did not reveal that the person to whom it belongs was recognized as the Plaintiff’s representative, and it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s disposition of this case was made to evade income tax to be imposed on the Plaintiff’s representative. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the taxpayer’s obligation to withhold income tax under Article 26-2(1)1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, which was related to income tax from the recognized bonus disposal, constitutes “a case where the Plaintiff evades national tax due to fraud or other unlawful act,” and thus, it can be deemed that the period of exclusion of imposition for withholding income tax for 190 years and 20 years thereafter.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the disposition of this case is legitimate and the disposition of this case is unlawful. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.