The existence of omissions or errors is recognized to a considerable extent by the data supported by objectivity and rationality.

The Plaintiff’s selection of the Plaintiff as a person subject to the instant tax investigation cannot be deemed to violate Article 81-6(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and there is no illegality in the period of the tax investigation or the suspension of the tax investigation, on the grounds of the data fully supported objectivity and rationality.

Article 81-6 of Framework Act on National Taxes

2017Guhap10678 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing global income tax, etc.

AA

○○ Head of tax office

December 7, 2017

December 21, 2017

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

With respect to the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s 200. 0. 0. ○○○, a 200-year global income tax, and the 200-year reversion to the Plaintiff.

Disposition of imposition of ○○, 200 years belonging to 200, 200 years belonging to 200, 200 years respectively, and 200 years of value-added tax

1st, ○○, 200, 200, 1st, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, and 1st, 200.

Each disposition of imposition of ○○, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, and 200, 200, respectively.

(hereinafter referred to as the "each disposition of this case" in addition to all of the above global income tax and value added tax

(3) all of the foregoing shall be revoked.

1. Circumstances of each disposition of this case;

A. The plaintiff is a person who is engaged in tax business in ○○ Dong, and the non-party BB is the plaintiff's spouse.

B. The Defendant, on January 1, 200 and December 31, 200, notified the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff was subject to non-regular tax investigation pursuant to Article 81-6(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, for the period from January 1, 200 to December 31, 200, on the ground that the Plaintiff was suspected of omitting the amount of income, etc., and that the Plaintiff conducted the global income tax investigation subject to the investigation of the taxable period from January 1, 200 to December 31, 200, and the value-added tax investigation subject to the investigation of the taxable period from January 1, 200 to December 31, 200.

C. In addition, the Defendant notified BB that the gift tax investigation subject to investigation should be conducted from January 1, 200 to December 31, 2000, for the period from January 1, 200 to December 31, 200, on the ground that the source of funds for acquiring property, such as real estate, acquired in 200 years, was unclear, and thus, was selected as a person subject to investigation.

D. As a result of the tax investigation on the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the “tax investigation of this case”), the Defendant: (a) on February 2, 200 on the ground that there was an omission of income amount, expenses irrelevant to business, etc.; (b) the Plaintiff’s global income tax for 200 years; (c) global income tax for 200 years; (d) global income tax for 200 years; (d) global income tax for 200 years; and (d) global income tax for 200 years; (b) global income tax for 200 years; (c) global income tax for 200 years; (d) global value-added tax for 200 years; (d) global value-added tax for 200 years; (d) global value-added tax for 200 years; (d) global value-added tax for 200 years; (d) global income tax for 200 years; and (v) global income tax for 200 years; and

○○○(○○○○○) revised and decided each of the ○○○(○○○○○)(On the other hand, with respect to BB, the gift tax was not revised and determined separately).

E. The Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal on 200. ○○○○○○○, the tax Tribunal decided to include the Plaintiff’s tax base and tax amount for each taxable period in the necessary expenses, and to revise the tax base and tax amount for each taxable period by including the Plaintiff’s ○○○○ (the ○○, the 200-year ○○, and the 200-year ○○○) out of the 200-year ○○ (the 200-year ○○, the 200-year ○ ○○, and the 200-year ○ ○) out of the 200-year ○○ (the 200-year ○ ○ ○, and the 200-year ○ ○) in the necessary expenses, and the remaining ○ ○ ○ ”

F. According to the above decision, the Defendant rendered a correction and determination of the Plaintiff’s 200-year comprehensive income tax as ○○○, and the 200-year comprehensive income tax as ○○○.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 1 to 14

(2) Each entry and the purport of the whole pleading;

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

The tax investigation of this case is unlawful, such as ① the Plaintiff’s selection of the Plaintiff as the subject of the tax investigation, ② the period is 30 days despite the lawful tax investigation period is less than 20 days, ③ the fact that the tax investigation of this case was suspended on the ground of unfair discontinuance although there was no reason to suspend the intermediate tax investigation. As long as the tax investigation of this case is illegal, each disposition of this case based on the result of illegal tax investigation is also unlawful.

3. Whether each of the dispositions in this case is legitimate

(a) Relevant statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

B. Determination

1) Whether the selection of a taxpayer is illegal

A) Article 81-6(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "tax officials may conduct a tax investigation in any of the following cases." Article 81-6(4) provides that "Where there is clear evidence to acknowledge a suspicion of omission or error in the content of a tax return, a tax official may conduct a tax investigation." This refers to a case where a tax investigation is conducted without a reason to select a person subject to tax investigation as provided in Article 81-6(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and a tax disposition is conducted based on it violates the due process principle and Article 81-6(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and barring any special circumstance, such taxation disposition is unlawful (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2012Du911, Jun. 26, 2014; 201Du30681, Apr. 16, 207; 2012Du30681, Feb. 16, 2017).

B) Considering the above facts in light of the above legal principles, the defendant selected the plaintiff as a subject of the tax investigation of this case and conducted the tax investigation of this case based on the judgment that there was a suspicion of major omissions, such as the omission of income amount, appropriation by a park, excessive appropriation of personnel expenses, etc., BB's shortage in financing, etc., and the result thereof, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff was subject to the tax investigation of this case. Therefore, in determining that the defendant's collection of taxation data of this case after the defendant was conducted the tax investigation of this case in violation of Article 81-6 (3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, it is determined that the defendant's collection of taxation data of this case and the imposition of each disposition of this case was illegal in violation of the above provision of Article 81-6 (3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes.

C) However, according to the above evidence, the Defendant’s determination of the suspicion of omission against the Plaintiff was examined: (a) the suspicion of omission of the revenue amount was identified by comparing the global income tax for 2000 to 2000, the list of the persons who filed the global income tax and the list of the total tax invoices for each customer submitted by the Plaintiff with the list of the total tax invoices for each customer; and (b) the suspicion of omission was identified by comparing the amount of rent, repair cost, advertising cost, transportation cost, vehicle maintenance cost, payment fee, consumption cost, and other evidential data on the Plaintiff’s global income tax return from 200 to 2000; and (c) the suspicion of excessive appropriation, such as personnel expenses, etc., was identified by comparing the details of the report with the real evidence on the Plaintiff’s global income tax return (purchase tax invoice) and the details of the report by 200 to 200.

D) According to the above facts, in determining the plaintiff's major omission suspicion, data based on which the defendant is based are global income tax and corporate tax reporter's list, list of total tax invoices by customer, list of total tax invoices by customer, global income tax return, value-added tax return, wage, business income, other income and property status table, etc., and such data are data fully supported by objectivity and rationality. Thus, insofar as it is highly probable to confirm that the plaintiff's return was omitted or erroneous, it cannot be deemed that the defendant's selection of the plaintiff as the person subject to the tax investigation of this case violates Article 81-6 (3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and as long as the defendant's selection of the person subject to the tax investigation of this case was not illegal, the selection of the person subject to the tax investigation of this case is not illegal merely because some suspicion against the plaintiff was not recognized

E) Therefore, it is lawful for the Defendant to select the Plaintiff as the subject of the instant tax investigation, and there is no other evidence to deem that the selection of the subject of the instant tax investigation is unlawful, and this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without

2) Whether the period of tax investigation is unlawful

A) Article 81-8(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that, in principle, the tax investigation period for taxpayers whose annual income or transfer value is less than 10 billion won in the taxable period with the largest annual income or transfer value during the taxable period subject to investigation shall be within 20 days.

However, even if a tax investigation is conducted on a taxpayer pursuant to paragraph (2) of the same Article, it shall not be subject to the restriction of the period of tax investigation for 20 days in cases of investigating the tax evasion by means of a nominal statement, preparation of double books, use of borrowed accounts, omission of cash transactions (Article 3).

B) According to the above legal principles, the Plaintiff’s annual income or transfer value during the pertinent taxable period subject to investigation constitutes a taxpayer whose annual income or transfer value is less than 10 billion won.

However, the tax investigation of this case was conducted to verify the existence of suspicion of omission of revenue amount, etc. as a result of reviewing the details of the plaintiff's report, and the fact that the tax investigation of BB was conducted with regard to gift tax.

C) Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the period of tax investigation under Article 81-8(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes does not apply to the Plaintiff. Thus, even if the instant tax investigation was conducted for 30 days, it cannot be deemed that there was a defect in violation of the Framework Act on National Taxes

3) Whether the suspension of tax investigation is unlawful

A) Article 81-8(4) and (5) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "where a taxpayer has difficulty in carrying out a tax investigation due to reasons prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as delaying the submission of data, the tax investigation may be suspended, and where the tax investigation is suspended, the investigation shall be resumed immediately when the grounds for suspension cease to exist."

On the other hand, Article 63-10 Item 3 (c) of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes enacted by delegation of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that it is difficult for a taxpayer to normally conduct a tax investigation because he/she conceals books, documents, etc. or delays or refuses the submission thereof,

B) According to the above laws and regulations, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to explain about 200:0 o. 14:00 o. 14:00 o. 200 o. o. 14:0 o. 200 o. o. 3 o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. : o. o. o. o. o. o. : o. o. o. o. o. o. : o. o. o. : o. o. o. o. o. o. : o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. 2. o. o. o. o. o. o. o.

C) According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s suspension of the instant tax investigation was lawfully conducted based on Article 81-8(4) of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 63-10 subparag. 3(c) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act based on the determination that the Plaintiff failed to submit adequate materials to the Defendant’s 1 and 2 vindication request, and that the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is also without merit, since there is no evidence to acknowledge that the suspension

4. Conclusion

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