(a) The time when the deficit amount of the corporation is excessively appropriated as the deficit amount; and

(b) Whether the head of a tax office has determined the tax base and amount internally through the form of written determination, as provided in Article 9-3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act;

(a) In the corporate tax to be levied and collected by the taxpayer’s return, if the taxpayer files a return on the tax base within the due date for the return, even if there are offenses involving the deficiencies in excess of the deficit amount, when the government makes a decision or investigation on the taxation standard concerned and the due date for the payment expires, the offenses will be

B. Although the Defendant Company filed a tax base return with excessive appropriation of the deficit amount for the business year, the chief of the competent district tax office received the Defendant Company’s books and documents from the investigating authorities on the day they received them, and then determined internal compliance with the above tax base and tax amount as stated in the above tax return. However, if the tax base return amount was subsequently determined based on the result of a tax accountant inspection again at the later time, the said written determination cannot be deemed as a decision that establishes the tax liability under Article 9-3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act

(a) Articles 9-3 and 12-3 (b) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act; Articles 9-3 and 12-3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act; Articles 32 and 33 of the former Corporate Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 3200, Dec. 28, 1979);

Supreme Court Decision 80Do2824 Delivered on December 8, 1981

Defendant 1 and one other

Prosecutor

Attorney Jin Jin-hun, Jin-jin, Song Young-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 82No37 decided May 19, 1982

The appeal is dismissed.

The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

(1) In light of the provisions of Article 9-3 (1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 3200 of Dec. 28, 1979) and Article 92 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 9699 of Dec. 31, 1979), when the taxpayer files a tax base return within the statutory reporting period, the taxpayer shall make a decision or investigation on the tax base of the pertinent tax item after the lapse of the payment period. In light of the provisions of Articles 12-3 (3) of the same Act and Article 12-3 (3) of the same Act, where the taxpayer files a tax base return within the statutory reporting period, the taxpayer shall make a decision or investigation on the tax base of the pertinent tax item, and the taxpayer shall not be subject to a decision or investigation on the tax base after the expiration of the payment period. Thus, the determination on the tax base of the corporation shall be made within the statutory reporting period under Articles 26 through 28 of the above Act.

(2) According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, Defendant 2 was not a party to the above on-site investigation and was not a party to the above-mentioned tax base for 7 years on the ground that it was not a party to the above-mentioned spot investigation and was not a party to the above-mentioned tax base for 9 years, and thus, it was not a party to the above-mentioned tax investigation and that it was not a party to the above-mentioned tax base for 19,718,150 won. The court below decided that the amount of the tax base for the corporation was a party to the above-mentioned tax investigation and was not a party to the above-mentioned tax base for 7 years on the ground that it was not a party to the above-mentioned tax base for 9 years on the ground that it was not a party to the above-mentioned field investigation and that it was a party to the above-mentioned tax investigation and that it was not a party to the above-mentioned tax base for 19,777,609 won. The court below determined that the tax base for the corporation was a party to the above-mentioned tax base for 1.

In addition, there is no reason in the appellate brief concerning the verdict of innocence on the charge that the Defendants evaded corporate tax in the business year of 1973 and corporate business tax.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Jung-soo (Presiding Justice) and Lee Jong-young's Lee Jong-young