Cho High Court Decision 201J 0812 (Law No. 11, 2011)

In reporting of tax evasion, prior notice of tax investigation may be omitted.

If a prior notice is given prior to the commencement of an investigation while conducting a tax investigation on the information on tax evasion report, the purpose of the investigation can not be achieved due to destruction of evidence, etc.

Article 81-7 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2011. Revocation of revocation of the imposition of value-added tax

Park AA

Head of Mapo Tax Office

January 13, 2012

February 17, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 7,792,951, which was imposed on the Plaintiff on January 26, 2011 (referred to as “the Plaintiff’s statement of November 19, 2010,” appears to be a clerical error) was revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The defendant's lawsuit seeking the leakage of personal information in 2006 and 2008 against the plaintiff running a lawyer's business

On April 7, 2010 to April 26, 2010, the plaintiff investigated the plaintiff's 2006 and the value-added tax in 2008 (hereinafter "tax investigation of this case") from April 7, 2010 to April 26, 201, and confirmed that the plaintiff omitted the return of the 60,300,000 won of the 2007 fee for the lawsuit, and on January 26, 201, the plaintiff corrected and notified the 7,792,951 won of the 2007 value-added tax (hereinafter "the disposition of this case").

B. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a petition with the Tax Tribunal for a trial on March 2, 201, but the said petition was dismissed on April 11, 201.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Procedural illegality assertion

The Defendant did not go through the prior notice procedure of the tax investigation under Article 81-7(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes after conducting the instant tax investigation, and expanded the scope of the investigation by 2007 after conducting the tax investigation only with respect to the value-added tax in 2006 and 2008. Thus, the Defendant omitted it even though it had been notified in writing to the Plaintiff under Article 81-9(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes.

2) The assertion of substantive illegality

The defendant did not specifically investigate or prove that the plaintiff received a certain amount of contingent remuneration in relation to the disposition of this case.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Whether the procedure is unlawful

First of all, the proviso of Article 81-7(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that the procedure of advance notice may be omitted where the purpose of investigation can not be achieved because of the destruction of evidence if the prior notice was given to the Plaintiff. In light of the fact that the tax investigation of this case started due to the Plaintiff’s accusation of tax evasion charges, it constitutes a case where the purpose of investigation can not be achieved due to the destruction of evidence, etc. If the prior notice was given to the Plaintiff. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was an error of law regarding the Defendant’s failure to make a prior notice while commencing the tax investigation of this case. Then, according to the records on the document notice’s violation, the Defendant did not make a prior notice to the Plaintiff in 206 and 208 pursuant to the proviso of Article 81-7(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and there was no evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s failure to conduct a tax investigation for the pertinent taxable year by the Plaintiff in 2007 or 376.

2) Whether there is substantial illegality

According to the evidence Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 5, the defendant should have assessed 60,300,000 won (65,511,000 won (218,370,000 won) which is 30% of the total amount of the high court's 218,370,000 won at the time of the return of value-added tax on 271, 207. However, the defendant can be found to have issued the disposition of this case on the ground that the plaintiff omitted sales of the main amount recognized as 201,00,000 won in the disposition due to the mistake of the investigator. The above evidence seems to prove the legality of the disposition of this case. Accordingly, the defendant's assertion that the defendant did not specifically investigate or prove the disposition of this case is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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

section 3.