early 2010west0267 (201.03.09)

The lawsuit of this case is not deemed to have been filed after the lapse of the period for filing the lawsuit.

A notice of additional dues or increased additional dues naturally arising under a legal provision may not be deemed a disposition subject to an appeal litigation even without the final procedure of the tax authority. Since it is apparent in the record that 90 days have elapsed from Mar. 11, 2011, the date on which the decision of dismissal by the Tax Tribunal was notified, which was made on Nov. 16, 201, and it is apparent that the fact that it was made on Nov. 16, 201, which is obvious,

2011Guhap38872 Revocation of Disposition of Corporate Tax Imposition

SeoulAAAAA

Head of Geumcheon Tax Office

August 17, 2012

September 14, 2012

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

On June 5, 2009, the defendant revoked the imposition of corporate tax of 00 won in 2004, additional tax of 000 won, increased additional tax of 000 won, and increased additional tax of 00 won in 2005, increased additional tax of 00 won in corporate tax of 2006, and increased additional tax of 00 won in 2006, and increased additional tax of 00 won in 2006 (the plaintiff stated that the corporate tax amount to be cancelled in the column of the claim of the complaint is '00 won in 2004 and 000 won in 2005 and 000 won in 206, other than each corporate tax, and that the plaintiff's claim includes additional and increased additional tax of 200 won in addition to each corporate tax).

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation established on March 14, 2001 for the purpose of transporting emergency patients.

B. On June 5, 2009, the Defendant issued the instant disposition imposing corporate tax of 000 won (additional dues of 000 won and aggravated additional dues of 000 won) and corporate tax of 0000 (additional dues of 000 won and increased additional dues of 000 won) of 2005, which was calculated by including the amount of sales omission to the Plaintiff in the gross income, in the calculation of two ambulances registered in the name of the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the “emergency vehicles in this case”), from Korea AAA, and the sales of KRW 00 in 2004, which was incurred in the year 2005, and the corporate tax of 2006 (additional dues of 00 won and increased additional dues of 00 won).

C. On January 12, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on March 9, 201.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 3, 5 (including household numbers), and 6

2. Determination

A. Whether the instant lawsuit is lawful

(1) Part on the claim to revoke additional charges and increased additional charges

The additional dues or increased additional dues provided for in Articles 21 and 22 of the National Tax Collection Act (amended by Act No. 10527, Apr. 4, 2011) are naturally generated under the provisions of the Act, even if national taxes are not paid by the due date, without the due date for payment, and thus, notification of additional dues or increased additional dues cannot be deemed a disposition subject to appeal litigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da15482, Jun. 10, 2005). The part seeking revocation of additional dues and increased additional dues in the lawsuit in this case is unlawful.

(2) Claim for revocation of corporate tax

According to Article 56 (3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, where a request for a trial under the Framework Act on National Taxes has been made on an unlawful disposition, an administrative litigation shall be filed within 90 days from the date of receipt of a decision on the request for a trial. On January 12, 2010, the fact that the plaintiff, and the plaintiff filed a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal on January 12, 2010 after filing an objection to the disposition of this case, which was issued on March 9, 2011, was found to have been notified to the plaintiff on March 11, 2011, and that the lawsuit of this case was clearly recorded on November 16, 2011, and it is unreasonable to prove that the plaintiff's request for the cancellation of the corporate tax of this case could not be made for the reason that the plaintiff's request for the inspection was not made late due to the reason that it could not be proved that the plaintiff's request for the disclosure of the information of this case.

B. Determination on the home merits

Even if the period of filing a lawsuit is exceeded due to a cause not attributable to the Plaintiff and the subsequent completion thereof is permitted, the instant disposition is legitimate for the following reasons.

O) The Plaintiff argues that the pertinent sales are unfair since the instant ambulances is a vehicle that actually owned and operated by KimP, not the Plaintiff. However, according to Article 44 of the Emergency Medical Service Act, it is prescribed that the pertinent sales are prohibited from being registered and operated by the first-aid vehicle except for those licensed for emergency patient transport business under the same Act as the Plaintiff, etc., as well as those licensed for emergency patient transport business under the same Act. In this case, KimP operating the instant ambulances does not personally register its business or pay relevant taxes, and even if the pertinent ambulances were not paid to the Plaintiff, it is merely an internal settlement issue between the Plaintiff and KimP (or KoreaAAAAAAAAAA). In light of the above, it is difficult to see that the business revenue generated by the operation of the instant ambulances does not belong to the Plaintiff, and the above argument is without merit.

O) The Plaintiff asserts that the calculation of the business revenue amount in the process of determining the tax amount of the instant disposition is illegal without clear grounds. According to each entry in the Evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including the serial number), the Defendant, upon notification from the Head of the Labor Relations Office, and based on the KimP’s statement, based on the KimP, that the head of the Korea AAAA branch of the Republic of Korea, KimP, operated the two ambulances registered in the name of the Plaintiff, confirmed the sales of the ambulances, and transferred the first-aid vehicle to the patient in order, the Plaintiff’s revenue amount is divided into the number of the ambulances used by the data, such as vehicle receipt amount, and the number of the first-aid vehicle used for each holding period by dividing the sales revenue amount by the number of the first-aid vehicle used for each holding period, the amount of the Plaintiff’s revenue amount is calculated in 2004 and 000 won in 205, 2006, and calculated the corporate tax amount by including the above revenue amount into gross income, it is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is illegal, it is decided to dismiss it as per Disposition.