Determination by estimation at the time of global income tax-free

However, the tax authority's estimation decision is legitimate when it makes no declaration that the notified tax amount and additional tax are inappropriate.

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 disposition of imposition of KRW 3,265,90 against the Plaintiff on August 11, 2009 is revoked (the “3,403,060 won of the purport of the claim” appears to be a clerical error in the “3,265,90 won”).

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From May 22, 1996, the Plaintiff is running the construction equipment business with the trade name of 1027-3, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Si-dong, 1027-3.

B. In the examination, the Plaintiff did not file a comprehensive income tax on KRW 93,191,00 for the income amount in 2007 on the grounds that the Plaintiff did not file a comprehensive income tax on KRW 93,191,01 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) pursuant to the proviso of Article 80(3) of the Income Tax Act and Article 143(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, and notified the Plaintiff of the pre-announcement of taxation on June 26, 2009. On August 11, 2009, the Plaintiff imposed a global income tax of KRW 3,265,90 (including additional tax) for the year 207 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1 (including natural disaster No. 1), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In comparison with the annual income and global income tax in 2005, 2006 and 2008, the instant disposition was imposed excessively compared to the Plaintiff’s annual income tax in 2007, and in particular, the amount equivalent to about 35% of the Defendant’s final tax amount calculated was collected as additional tax. This is against the law of equity, constitutional right to pursue happiness, right to equality, and right to equality.

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) From May 1, 2008 to May 31, 2008, the Plaintiff did not make a final return on the tax base of global income tax for the global income tax for the year 2007 between the macro-China and the same month.

(2) On June 26, 2009, the Plaintiff received the notice from the Defendant for pre-announcement of taxation on the instant disposition, but did not submit the account books and other evidentiary documents related to the Plaintiff’s business entity until the instant disposition is imposed.

(3) The Plaintiff’s income amount in 2006 is KRW 88,270,412, and the income amount in 2007 is KRW 93,191,010.

(4) Meanwhile, the sum of the amount on the list of the total tax invoices submitted by the Plaintiff at the time of return of the first and second value-added tax in 2007 is 126,848 won (=76,160 won + 50,688 won). The sum of the purchase details on the credit card sales slip, such as credit card sales slip, submitted by the said return, is 6,005,395 won (=231,820 won + 5,773,575 won). The sum of the total amount is 6,132,243 won (=126,848 won + 6,05,395 won).

(5) On August 11, 2009, the Plaintiff did not pay to the Defendant global income tax of KRW 3,265,90,90, including additional tax, even though it was imposed by the Defendant on August 11, 2009, and the Plaintiff notified the Plaintiff of the payment of the additional dues equivalent to KRW 3,265,90 and the increased additional dues equivalent to KRW 3,265,900 and KRW 137,160 [=3,265,900x (3/10 + 12/1,000 + 100), and less than KRW 10] under Articles 21 and 22 of the National Tax Collection Act by October 31, 2009.

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

D. Determination

(1) In determining the tax base of global income tax and the amount of tax for 2007, the facts that the plaintiff did not submit the books or other evidentiary documents are as mentioned above. In the event of display, the defendant may estimate the amount of income for 2007 pursuant to the proviso of Article 80(3) of the Act. According to the above provision and Article 143(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, the amount of income for 2006, which is the plaintiff's immediately preceding year, shall be determined as the amount calculated pursuant to Article 143(3)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, the amount calculated pursuant to Article 143(3)1 of the Act, the amount calculated pursuant to Article 143(3)1 of the same Act, the amount calculated pursuant to Article 143(3)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act x 2,857,67 won [the amount calculated pursuant to Article 143(3)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act - [the amount shall be deemed as KRW 52,1930,2000 won [the amount of income for purchase expenses -106,2310% or less];

In addition, under Article 47-2(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, where a taxpayer fails to file a tax base return within the statutory due date of return, an amount equivalent to 20/100 of the calculated tax under the tax-related Acts (hereinafter referred to as "additional tax on non-declaration") shall be added to the payable tax amount. According to Article 47-5(1) of the same Act and Article 27-4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, where a taxpayer fails to pay a national tax by the due date of payment under the tax-related Acts, the amount of unpaid tax x 3/10,00 for the period from the day following the due date of tax payment to the date of tax payment notice x 3/10,00 (hereinafter referred to as "additional tax on non-declaration of tax payment ") shall be added to the payable tax amount (hereinafter referred to as "additional tax on global income for non-declaration of tax payment x 38 won for the above calculated tax on global income for 2007 x 205 days x 105 days x 205 days ju 208.

Therefore, the global income tax (including additional tax) for the Plaintiff in 2007 is a total of 3,273,286 won (i.e., calculated tax amount of 2,460,193 + additional tax of 492,038 won + additional tax of 321,055 won). Thus, the instant disposition against the Defendant imposing the Plaintiff KRW 3,265,90, which is part of the above KRW 3,273,286, is lawful.

(2) On the other hand, the plaintiff used a total of KRW 50,400,000 for expenses for the operation of the mass season, such as paying KRW 30,000,000 as salary for one driver of the Poke, around 2007, and claimed that the amount of income should be determined by reflecting it. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff used a total of KRW 50,440,00 for expenses around 207. Thus, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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