Whether it is subject to simple expense rate application

The Plaintiff’s neglect of the obligation to enter into a Cash Receipt merchant does not constitute a justifiable ground for non-performance of the obligation.

Article 170 of the Income Tax Act

Incheon District Court 2015Guhap22 global income and revocation of disposition

AA

BB Director of the Tax Office

oly 3, 2015

August 28, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 20, 2011, the Plaintiff opened a service business (on December 20, 201) with the trade name “CC,” but closed on June 30, 2012, and opened a construction business (new construction sale of housing) with the trade name “DD” on February 6, 2012, but closed on June 30, 2012.

B. On May 31, 2013, the Plaintiff reported to KRW 2,501,00,000 on the total amount of income, tax base of KRW 198,52,00, and global income tax of KRW 46,531,110, based on the estimation income statement, when calculating business income in 2012 based on the estimation income statement.

(C) When the Defendant estimated the amount of income pursuant to Article 80(2) and (3) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11611, Jan. 1, 2013; hereinafter referred to as the “former Income Tax Act”) and Article 143 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24356, Feb. 15, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply), the Defendant issued a revised and notified the Plaintiff on December 23, 2013, on the ground that the Plaintiff was a person eligible for the application of the standard expense rate, not a person eligible for the application of the simple expense rate, on the ground that he/she was a person eligible for the application of the standard expense rate (including additional tax 14,056,693 won), and the Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the instant disposition and dismissed on June 26, 2014 through the instant objection, but was dismissed on June 16, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff is an entrepreneur who concurrently operates a business place (service business) which is a business type subject to the obligation of a cash receipt merchant and a business place (construction business) which is not a business type subject to the obligation of a cash receipt merchant, and the amount of revenue for the immediately preceding taxable period by business type falls short of the amount prescribed in Article 143(4)2(b) and (c) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (the amount of revenue for construction business 36 million won, service business 24 million won, service business 24 million won) and thus is subject to the application of the simple expense rate. It is unreasonable to exclude the application of the simple expense rate to the income amount of the remaining business place which is not subject to the obligation of a cash receipt merchant on the ground that some

Even if the above assertion is not accepted, the plaintiff started a new business in the immediately preceding taxable period and operated the business only one month among them, and the revenue amount is merely 11 million won, and the defendant was not informed at all of the defendant about the complicated formula to determine whether the business type subject to the duty to join cash receipt merchants is subject to the duty to join cash receipt merchants based on the conversion income (monthly calculation) calculated by dividing the revenue amount in the immediately preceding taxable period by the number of months of the business and then multiplying by 12. The above act of the defendant is against Article 90 of the Value-Added Tax Handling Regulation (National Tax Service Directive No. 1875). Therefore, at least the penalty amount in the disposition of this case

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Whether it is unlawful to exclude the application of simple expense rate

According to each provision of Article 143(4)2 and (6) and Article 208(7) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, a business operator whose aggregate amount of revenue in the immediately preceding taxable period falls short of a certain standard (36 million won in construction business, 24 million won in service business, 24 million won in service business) is subject to the application of the simple expense rate. If such simple expense rate concurrently runs the business of construction business, service business, etc. or places of business at least two places of business, the amount of revenue in the category of business (the largest amount of revenue) x a certain standard amount of revenue in the immediately preceding taxable period for the c primary business (36 million won in construction business, service business 24 million won in service business, 24 million won in the immediately preceding taxable period) / A business cash receipt merchant subject to the application of Article 143(4)2 and (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act shall not be included in the amount of revenue in the immediately preceding taxable period (36 million won in construction business, service 200 million won in the immediately preceding taxable period).

In this case, there is no dispute between the parties that the sum of revenue amounts for the immediately preceding taxable period (2011) in the year 2012 (201) of the Plaintiff's construction business and service business operated by the Plaintiff falls short of the specific criteria, and the Plaintiff is subject to the application of the simple expense rate, barring special circumstances. However, in light of the fact that the amount calculated by converting the revenue amount for the immediately preceding taxable period of the service business operated by the Plaintiff for one year exceeds 132 million won, and falls under the account holder of cash merchants in the business year 2012, and there is no dispute between the parties concerned, the above provisions adopted the individual expense rate in principle as to the personal scope of income subject to the income tax under the Income Tax Act, and the simple expense rate is to allow the estimation of income amount without any separate evidence, so it is not necessary to extend the application of the simple expense rate for estimation and correction in terms of the tax base, and the determination of the application of the expense rate for each business operated by the immediately preceding business operator shall not be applied to each business operator (i.

Even if it may be applicable, in cases where the business operator's estimated income falls under the grounds for excluding the application of the simple expense rate under the law on some of the businesses, it is reasonable to view that the application of the simple expense rate is excluded for all of the concurrent businesses in calculating the estimated income of the business operator. Unlike this, the plaintiff's assertion that the application of the simple expense rate is excluded only in the relevant business place due to the reasons for excluding the application of the simple expense rate concerning one business place among the concurrent businesses of

2) Whether the portion of additional tax is illegal

In full view of the overall purport of the arguments in evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the Defendant may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff sent a notice of membership to a cash receipt merchant on or around March 2012. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise is without merit. Even if the Plaintiff was unable to serve the said notice for any reason, penalty tax under the tax law is an administrative sanction imposed as prescribed by the Act in order to facilitate the exercise of the right to impose taxes and the realization of tax claims, where a taxpayer violates various duties, such as reporting and tax payment, without justifiable grounds, and the taxpayer’s intentional or negligent act is not considered, but does not constitute a justifiable reason that does not cause the Plaintiff to breach of his/her duty (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du7370, Mar. 13, 2014). Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff did not have to faithfully send the notice of membership to a cash receipt merchant among those engaged in the business of operating a Cash Receipt merchant under Article 90 of the National Tax Service Directive).

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.