Early High Court Decision 2015J 3309 ( October 26, 2015)

legitimate notification of return of excess refund;

A tax notice is sufficiently known that a tax notice has been issued in the purport of revoking the determination of the national tax refund with the content of the tax payment notice as well as claiming the refund of the refund, because the statement indicating the purport of claiming the refund.

Article 51 (Appropriation and Refund of National Tax Refund)

2015Guhap2124 Disposition to revoke the imposition of value-added tax

United Kingdom A

○ Head of tax office

2016.02.18

2016.03.17

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 0,00,00 for the first term portion of 2010 against the Plaintiff on January 6, 2015, KRW 00,000 for the second term portion of 2010, KRW 00,000 for the second term portion of 2010, KRW 00,000 for the first term portion of 2011, and value-added tax for the second term portion of 20,00,000 for the second term portion of 2011 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 12, 2002, the Plaintiff registered its business with the trade name “B food” (hereinafter “instant business establishment”) and reported and paid value-added tax from the first half to the second half of 2011.

B. Around January 2012, the Defendant conducted an investigation into the instant place of business, and deemed that a part of sales and purchase transaction were processed transactions, the Defendant refunded KRW 00,000,000 for the first term portion of value-added tax for the year 2010, KRW 000,000 for the second term portion of value-added tax for the year 201, KRW 00,000 for the first term portion of value-added tax for the year 201, and KRW 00,000 for the second term portion of value-added tax for the year 20,000 for the second term of 20,000 for the Plaintiff.

C. The director of ○○○ Regional Tax Office, after conducting an investigation with respect toCC Food Co., Ltd. and D Co., Ltd., the business partner of the instant business establishment, determined that the reported content of value-added tax at the instant business establishment cannot be deemed a processed transaction, and notified

D. On January 6, 2015, the Defendant decided and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 0,00,000 for the first term portion of value-added tax for the year 2010, KRW 00,000 for the second term portion of value-added tax for the year 2010, KRW 00,000 for the first term portion of value-added tax for the year 201, and KRW 00,000 for the second term portion of value-added tax for the year 201 (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”).

E. On June 12, 2015, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with each of the instant dispositions, filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on June 12, 2015, and the Tax Tribunal dismissed the said appeal on August 26, 2015.

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

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

In substance, each disposition of this case is a redemption disposition of the national tax refund to be refunded by the Defendant to the Plaintiff. Thus, the purport of each disposition of this case is legitimate so that it does not interfere with the Plaintiff’s appeal on each tax payment notice. However, each disposition of this case is ambiguously stated that each disposition of this case is a redemption disposition of the national tax refund without specific grounds for redemption. Accordingly, each disposition of this case should be revoked on the grounds that it erred in the procedure of notice.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

(1) The provisions pertaining to the notice of tax payment under the National Tax Collection Act accept the principle of due process under the Constitution and the basic principles of the Administrative Procedures Act in the territory of taxation, as they are. In addition, the fundamental purpose is to ensure the fairness of tax administration by having the tax authority excluding arbitrary and reasonable taxation, and to provide taxpayers with convenience in determining whether they are dissatisfied with the details of the taxation disposition and filing an objection (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2010Du12347, Oct. 18, 2012). However, if the refund of national tax for seeking the return of the amount already appropriated or paid is an incidental disposition to the collection of national taxes, and the provisions pertaining to the collection of national taxes under the Framework Act on National Taxes relating to the refund are not applicable mutatis mutandis. However, if the refund is returned, the pertinent provisions pertaining to the recovery of tax liability and the amount of tax to be collected in excess of the amount of tax payment notice are not clearly stated in the final and conclusive tax payment notice and thus, it does not differ from the tax payment notice.

(2) As seen earlier, from June 28, 2013 to March 6, 2014, the Defendant issued a tax notice to the Plaintiff in order to request the return of the above value-added tax, and on January 6, 2015, the Defendant issued a tax notice to the Plaintiff on the first quarter of 2010,000,000 won as value-added tax for the second quarter of 2010,000,000 won as value-added tax for the first quarter of 2010, and the first quarter of 2011, as value-added tax for the first quarter of 20,000,000 won as value-added tax for the second quarter of 20,000,000 won as value-added tax for the second quarter of 20,000 won as value-added tax for each quarter of 20,000 or 20,000 won as value-added tax for each quarter of 201 through 210, respectively.

In light of these circumstances, each tax payment notice contains the phrase stating that the Defendant sought the refund of each refund already paid to the Plaintiff, and it seems sufficient that the Plaintiff issued each tax payment notice to the purport that the Defendant cancels the previous decision of the national tax refund and seeks the refund of the refund at the same time, and that it was possible to determine whether there was any objection to the tax payment notice.

Therefore, this case's disposition is lawful since it is judged that it constitutes a lawful notification of return of excess refund pursuant to Article 51 (8) of the Framework Act on National Taxes.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.