2011 Consolidated 2294 Revocation of the imposition of global income tax

Kim A (58 years old, South)

CHAPTER B

July 14, 2011

August 18, 2011

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The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 4,320,590 on September 6, 2010 against the Plaintiff was revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 원고는 1993. 6. 23.부터 의류임가공업체인 ☆을 운영하고 있고, 2004. 6. 1.부터는 ☆과는 별도로 부동산임대업을 함께 운영하고 있다.

나. 원고는 소득세법상의 복식부기의무자로서, 소득세법 제160조의5 규정에 따라 ☆의 사업용계좌는 법정신고기한 내인 2007. 6. 21. 관할 세무서장에게 신고하였는데, 부동산임대업에 대한 사업용계좌는 법정신고기한이 지난 2009. 3. 31. 신고하였다.다. 그러자 피고는, 원고가 조세특례제한법 제7조의 '중소기업에 대한 특별세액감면 규정'에 따라 공제받았던 2008년 귀속 종합소득세 3,994,634원의 감면혜택을 조세특례제한법 제128조 제4항에 의거 배제하고, 2010. 9. 6. 원고에게 2008년 귀속 종합소득세 4,320,590원(위 3,994,634원+가산세 325,962원, 십원 미만 버림)을 부과(이하 '이 사건 처분'이라 한다)하였다.

D. The Plaintiff appealed and filed a petition for review on October 13, 2010, but C dismissed the Plaintiff’s petition for review on April 8, 2011.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 3 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply)

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

If a business operator who operates multiple places of business neglects to report a business account, the tax authorities can exclude the application of special tax reduction or exemption under Article 7 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act only for a place of business which fails to report a business account, and the plaintiff's real estate rental business is not subject to special tax reduction or exemption under Article 7 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

그런데, 피고는 사업용계좌 신고의무를 미이행한 부동산임대업이 아닌, 법정신고 기한 내에 사업용계좌를 신고한 ☆에 대해 중소기업 특별세액감면의 적용을 배제하고 이 사건 처분을 하였으므로, 위 처분은 위법하다.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes shall be as follows.

C. Determination

1) 살피건대, 을 제1, 2, 3호증의 각 기재 및 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 원고는 2008년 귀속 종합소득세 신고시 부동산임대업의 소득금액으로 20,657,913원, ☆의 소득금액으로 82,278,185원을 각 신고하였는데, 부동산임대업의 경우 2003년부터 발생한 이월결손금으로 인해 소득금액이 0원이 된 사실, 따라서 원고는 2008년 귀속 종합소득세 산정시 ☆에 대해서만 3,994,634원의 중소기업 특별세액감면혜택을 받은 사실, 그런데, 원고가 부동산임대업에 대한 사업용계좌 신고의무를 이행하지 아니하자, 피고는 사업용계좌 신고의무를 이행한 ☆에 대한 중소기업 특별세액감면 혜택을 취소하고 이 사건 처분을 한 사실은 인정되고, 조세특례제한법 제7조에 의하면 원고의 부동산임대업은 중소기업 특별세액감면 업종이 아니고, 원고의 ☆은 중소기업 특별세액감면 업종이다.

2) However, it is reasonable to exclude the application of the special tax reduction or exemption under Article 128(4) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act on the following grounds.

A) First of all, Article 160-5(3) of the Income Tax Act imposes a duty to report a business account on a person subject to double-entry bookkeeping. According to Article 160-5(3) of the Income Tax Act and Article 208(5) and (7) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, if two or more places of business are operated or multiple types of business are concurrently operated, the person subject to double-entry bookkeeping may be subject to double-entry bookkeeping. The person subject to double-entry bookkeeping shall be subject to double-entry bookkeeping. Article 208-5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that the person subject to double-entry bookkeeping shall be subject to double-entry bookkeeping. Article 208-5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that the person subject to double-entry bookkeeping shall report one account for two or more places of business, but may report two or more accounts for each place of business, and because income tax

B) In addition, Article 128(4)1 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, which provides for the exclusion from the application of special tax reduction or exemption for small and medium enterprises, provides that "if a business operator subject to double-entry bookkeeping under Article 160-5 of the Income Tax Act fails to fulfill his/her obligation to report a business account under Article 160-5 of the Income Tax Act, the special tax reduction or exemption for small and medium enterprises shall not apply." Thus, Article 128(4)1 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that where a business operator subject to double-entry bookkeeping under Article 160-5 of the Income Tax Act fails to fulfill his/her obligation to report the business account, the application of special tax reduction or exemption for small and medium

A person subject to double-entry bookkeeping under Article 160-5 of the Income Tax Act, which is stipulated in Article 128 (4) 1 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, shall be a person subject to double-entry bookkeeping, and shall be a person

Since it does not distinguish whether a small enterprise is subject to special tax reduction or exemption or is a type of business not subject to special tax reduction or exemption, in light of the principle of strict interpretation of tax law, a business operator excluded from special tax reduction or exemption pursuant to Article 128 (4) 1 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act refers only to a business operator subject to special tax reduction or exemption pursuant to Article 7 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and cannot be interpreted narrowly by applying double entry.

C) Accordingly, with respect to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff, a person liable to make a return under the Income Tax Act, was negligent in performing the duty to report a business account for real estate rental among two businesses, a special small and medium enterprise

The plaintiff's assertion that this case's disposition imposing comprehensive income tax for the year 2008 after excluding the application of tax reduction and exemption is legitimate and against this, it is necessary to determine whether to exclude the application of special tax reduction and exemption by workplace 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.

Provisions of the presiding judge;

Judges Kim Jae-deok

Judges Jong-jin