beta
Text
The judgment below
The part concerning the imposition of heavy additional tax on negligent tax returns and additional tax on negligent tax shall be reversed, and this shall be applicable.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the ground of appeal No. 3, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the exclusion period of imposition of the transfer income tax of this case was ten years, deeming that the act of the Plaintiff, a taxpayer, drafted a false double sales contract wherein the transfer value under-reported was written and submitted along with a false sales contract wherein the transfer value was under-reported, was significantly difficult to impose and collect taxes as an active deceptive act, and thus, constitutes “Fraud or other unlawful act” under Article 26-2(1)1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 9911, Jan. 1,
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal provisions and legal principles as well as the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the exclusion period of imposition, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.
2. On the ground of appeal No. 4, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant disposition imposing the transfer income tax of this case was unlawful since five years have elapsed since the expiration of the statute of limitations on the collection right, on the grounds of its reasoning that the statute of limitations on the right to collect the transfer income tax of this case
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant statutes and legal principles as well as the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the extinctive prescription of the collection right, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal
3. On the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, determined that the Plaintiff’s failure to pay and pay the principal income tax of this case constitutes a case where there is a justifiable reason that the Plaintiff could not be found to have caused the failure of the Plaintiff to pay and pay.
The judgment below
The reasoning of the judgment below is stated.