A. Whether an application for exemption from capital gains tax under the former Income Tax Act may be exempted where the application is filed after the application date is too excessive (negative)

B. Whether the tax authority violated the good faith principle of taxation again after making a non-taxation decision (negative)

A. According to the provisions of Article 6 (4) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3793 of Dec. 23, 1985), a person who intends to be exempted from capital gains tax may file an application for tax exemption by the specified deadline, and thereafter, an application for tax exemption cannot be cured even if the application is filed prior to the tax disposition by the tax authority.

B. In light of the provisions of Article 127 of the Income Tax Act, the fact that the tax authority once issued a non-taxation decision and reversed it and issued a new taxation disposition cannot be deemed as unlawful in light of the principle of good faith.

A. Article 6 (4) (b) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3793 of Dec. 23, 1985)

Plaintiff

the director of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 87Gu144 delivered on June 4, 1987

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the plaintiff transferred the site and building of the factory to the non-party on January 25, 1980 for the relocation of the factory and submitted an application for exemption from income tax to the defendant on June 8, 1981, and held that the plaintiff's application for exemption from income tax after the expiration of the deadline is not appropriate for legal requirements even though he submitted an application for exemption from capital gains tax on the transfer of the factory site and building to the defendant on May 31, 1981 along with the final return on the final return on tax base and the final return on tax base to the defendant on June 8, 1981, but the plaintiff's application for exemption from income after the expiration of the deadline does not meet the legal requirements. However, the plaintiff's application for exemption from income tax was made before the expiration of the deadline for determination of the government's tax base and tax amount, and the defendant's application for exemption from income tax was made far more later than the plaintiff's application for exemption from income tax. The defendant's revocation of taxation was unlawful by reason.

However, according to Article 3 (1) of the Addenda to the amended Act of December 23, 1985, Article 6 (4) of the Income Tax Act (Act No. 3793 of Dec. 23, 1985), since the amended provisions of Article 6 (4) provide that the provisions shall apply from the first transfer after the enforcement of this Act, the previous provisions shall apply to the case in which the goods are transferred before the enforcement of that Act, notwithstanding the amendment of the above Act, and according to the previous provisions, the application for tax exemption may be entitled to be exempted until May 31, 1981, and the application for tax exemption may not be cured even if the tax disposition was submitted before the imposing authority.

In addition, Article 127 of the Income Tax Act provides that when there is an omission or error in the investigation and determination of the tax base and tax amount, the imposing authority shall immediately make a decision of correction. Thus, the defendant's tax disposition cannot be deemed to be unlawful on the sole basis of the defendant's reversal of the non-taxation decision and re-assessment of the decision. It is reasonable to point out this issue.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)