The sum of income of the senior executive officers to the actual business operator.

The purpose of tax evasion is to evade the income tax by evading the progressive tax rate by preparing a false partnership contract with the aim of tax evasion and filing a distributed tax return on sales.

Additional tax on underreporting and overreporting under Article 47-3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2014Guhap32930 Disposition of revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

OO

○ Head of tax office

October 8, 2015

November 26, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The imposition disposition of global income tax on the second-term value-added tax for the year 201 on January 2, 2011, imposed by the former Young-gu Defendant on the Plaintiff on the Plaintiff on January 2, 2014, KRW 32,797150, value-added tax on the first-term value-added tax for the year 2012, KRW 58,405,59, value-added tax on the second-term value-added tax for the year 2012, KRW 67,39,370, global income tax on the second-term value-added tax for the year 2012, KRW 25,394,660, global income tax on the amount reverted to the year 205, KRW 19,69,480, global income tax on the amount reverted to the year 206, KRW 26,160,020, KRW 2034, KRW 209, KRW 2015, individual income tax on the year 2001.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From around 1999 to around August 2013, the Plaintiff operated the ○○○○○○○○○○○-dong ○○○○○○○-dong ○○○○○○○○○-dong ○○○○○○○○○○○-○○○○○○○○, respectively, from August 2009 to May 2013. (B) The Plaintiff, as a joint project, operated the ○○○○○○○○-○○○○-○○○○○○○-dong 33% of the shares (33.3% of the shares) and the ○○○○○-○○○○○ (33.3% of the shares)’s equity ratio, based on the premise that the ○○○○○-○○-○○○-○○-○○-○○-○○-○○-○ joint business operated as a joint project, having the amount of income accrued from 2004 to 201.

E. On April 7, 2014, the Plaintiff appealed to the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on September 1, 2014.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The disposition of this case where the exclusion period of imposition of ten years under Article 26-2(1)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes is applied is unlawful, since there was no deceptive scheme or other active misconduct other than the disguised title.

2) The Plaintiff did not create double books and did not destroy account books or documentary evidence for the purpose of destroying evidence to evade taxes, and thus, the portion of the penalty tax for unfair underreporting among the instant disposition is unlawful.

3) Of the instant disposition, the part on global income tax for the year 2012 is illegal, not taking into account the Plaintiff’s expenses incurred in cash.

(b) Related statutes;

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) According to Article 26-2(1)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, in cases where a taxpayer evades national taxes by fraud or other improper means, national taxes may be imposed for ten years from the date on which the national taxes can be imposed. “Fraud or other unlawful acts” refers to a deceptive scheme or other active acts that make it impossible or considerably difficult to impose and collect taxes (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Du7667, Dec. 12, 2013). Moreover, the term “unlawful or other unlawful acts” refers to the act of deception or other active acts that make it difficult to discover the taxation requirement on the national taxes, which is the requirement for an unfair under-reported additional tax under Article 47-3(2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, and the under-reported return of the tax base due to an active act, such as omitting the tax base by fraud or other improper acts, which led to the purpose of tax evasion (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Du12362, Nov. 28, 2013).

Comprehensively taking account of the following facts as to this case’s health account and evidence Nos. 4 through 12, the Plaintiff omitted the details of cash sales in the transaction book and reported the value-added tax based thereon. It is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff evaded each of the value-added tax and each of the aggregate income tax of this case by filing a separate report on distribution of sales after the registration of each wedding hall operated by himself as if he operated the joint business proprietor. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s act constitutes an active act that makes it difficult to impose and collect taxes for the purpose of tax evasion. Thus, the disposition of this case imposing an unfair under-reported penalty tax by applying the ten-year exclusion period of imposition is lawful.

① At the time of the investigation by the Defendant around September 2013, the Plaintiff stated that “○○○○, Park○, and Kim○, which the Plaintiff reported to a joint proprietor of ○○○○ Holdings’s joint proprietor of the joint proprietor of the joint proprietor of the joint proprietor of the joint proprietor of the joint proprietor of the joint proprietor of the joint proprietor of the ○○○○ Holdings, and ○○○○, all of which were reported to the joint proprietor of the joint proprietor of the ○○○○○○○○○, and ○○○○ was merely the nominal proprietor and did not actually participate in the management. The Plaintiff entered the same business contract with the said joint proprietor of the joint proprietor, and subsequently registered as the joint proprietor of the joint proprietor of the joint proprietor.” The said joint proprietor of the joint proprietor of the joint proprietor of the joint proprietor of the joint proprietor of the joint proprietor of the joint proprietor of the joint proprietor of the joint proprietor of the joint proprietor of the joint proprietor of the joint proprietor of the joint proprietor of the joint proprietor of the joint proprietor of the joint proprietor of the joint proprietor of the joint proprietor of the joint proprietor of the joint proprietor.”

③ From July 1, 2011 to December 31, 2012, the Plaintiff was convicted of having committed a crime that evaded the comprehensive income tax in 2011, on November 18, 2014 (○○ District Court ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○), and on February 11, 2015, the Plaintiff was convicted of having been declared guilty in the appellate court on the following grounds: (a) the Plaintiff kept double books and omitted cash sales; and (b) the Plaintiff did not have any other evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff paid charges in cash during the taxable period of global income tax for the first half to the second half of 2012 by filing a false registration of joint business operators; (c) the Plaintiff did not have any other evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff paid charges in cash for the above portion of the parking lot. However, there was no reason to acknowledge that there was lack of evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff paid charges in cash for the above portion of the parking lot.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's assertion is without merit and thus dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.