beta
Title
Whether the prohibition of duplicate investigation has been violated, and whether the exclusion period of national tax has been exceeded.
Summary
The prohibition of double investigation is not against the principle of double investigation because the tax investigation by the report on the receipt of the processing purchase tax invoice is based on the materials that prove the suspicion of tax evasion, and the exclusion period for imposition of the earned income tax on bonus disposal by the representative shall be applied 10 years.
Related statutes
Prohibition of duplicate investigation under Article 81-3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes
The exclusion period of imposition of national taxes under Article 26-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes
Text
1. On November 10, 2003, the head of ○○ Tax Office’s disposition of collecting KRW 969,270,590 from the earned income tax on the original earned income accrued in 196 against the Plaintiff on November 10, 200 and KRW 465,146,130 from the earned income tax on the original earned income accrued in 197 shall be revoked.
2. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the head of ○○ Tax Office and the claims against the head of ○○ Tax Office are all dismissed.
3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising from participation among the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant ○○ Head of the tax office is the Intervenor of the Defendant ○○ Head of the tax office, the remainder is divided into two parts, and the remainder is borne by the Plaintiff, respectively, by the head of the tax office ○○ Head of the tax office, and the part arising between the Plaintiff
Cheong-gu Office
The judgment as referred to in Paragraph (1) and paragraph (1) of the same Article and the disposition of imposition of KRW 61,428,100 for the first year value-added tax for the plaintiff on March 3, 2003, and KRW 180,825,100 for the second year value-added tax for the second year of 1996, KRW 126,902,420 for the first year value-added tax for the year of 1997, and KRW 843,534,950 for the business year of 1996 against the plaintiff on July 4, 1996 and the disposition of imposition of KRW 387,292,480 for the corporate tax for the business year of 1997 and the disposition of imposition of KRW 18,08,60 for the first year of 196 for the plaintiff on March 10, 203 shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. Details of the imposition;
The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the whole pleadings in the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 52, 53, evidence Nos. 55-1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence Nos. 3 through 7, Eul evidence Nos. 8-1, 2, 3, and Eul evidence No. 9:
A. On October 23, 1995, the Plaintiff Company was incorporated for the purpose of manufacturing semiconductor parts under the trade name "○○○ Co., Ltd.", and the change of trade name, the head office, and the representative director after its incorporation is as follows.
No.
Trade Name;
Date of Change
1
○○○ Incorporated Company
2
○○○○○○○○
March 4, 1998
3
○○○○○○○○
September 29, 1998
[Trade Name]
* On August 31, 2006, after the closure of the argument in this case, the trade name was changed to ○○○, Inc.
No.
Location of the head office
Date of Change
1
○○○○○○○○○ Dong ○○○○
2
○○○○○○○○○ Dong ○○○○
December 19, 1996
3
○○○○○○○○○ Dong ○○○○
December 15, 1997
4
○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○
December 31, 2004
[Location of Head Office]
* On September 5, 2006, after the closing of the argument in the instant case, the head office was relocated to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○, ○○○○.
No.
Name
The tenure of Office
1
○ ○
From October 23, 1995 to January 3, 1997 / From February 4, 1997 to January 3, 2005
2
○ Kim
From January 3 to February 4, 1997
3
Yang-○
From January 4, 2005 to September 14, 2005
4
Ansan ○
From March 6, 2006 to June 2006
[Representative Director]
B. From March 16, 200 to May 29, 200, the director of the regional tax office of ○○○ has conducted a tax investigation on the Plaintiff Company 199-199 (hereinafter referred to as the “first tax investigation”), and thereafter, he received a tax evasion report attached with relevant data from the former representative director of the Plaintiff Company Kim○○ (hereinafter referred to as the “the second tax investigation of this case”) from the former representative director of the Plaintiff Company (the former representative director of the Plaintiff Company that was incorporated by the Plaintiff Company (hereinafter referred to as the “Nonindicted○”), who is the assistant of Defendant ○○○ Tax Office’s assistant director of the Plaintiff Company (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”), from June 20 to September 30 of the same year.
C. As a result of the second tax investigation of this case, the director of the regional tax office of 00 won (referring to the time at which the head office of the Plaintiff was ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ in 196, KRW 472,500 in 196, KRW 390 in 1,390 in 196, and thereafter, notified the Defendants of the supply price of each taxable year in 1938, supply price.
D. Accordingly, the Defendants denied the input tax deduction of the above processed tax invoice, and excluded the value of supply from the deductible expenses, and then imposed the Plaintiff Company the amount of 61,428,100 won of the value-added tax of March 3, 2003, the amount of 1996 No. 180,825,100 won of the value-added tax of March 3, 1996, the amount of 126,902,420 won of the value-added tax of 1997, and the amount of 369,15,620 won of the value-added tax of 126,902,420 won of the value-added tax of 197, and the amount of 843,534,950 won of the corporate tax of 196, 387, 292, 480 won of the corporate tax of 197, 2308, 308.
E. On the other hand, the head of the tax office of ○○○○ shall consider the income amount of the Plaintiff’s company generated from the above tax adjustment as the non-disputable income, and then dispose of the income amount of the Plaintiff’s 1996 through 197 as the representative director of the Plaintiff’s company in proportion to their service period. On July 3, 2003, 202,87,717, 1997, 984,307, 271, 1997, 197, 984, 89, 482, 479, 197, 197’s income amount of the Plaintiff company’s income amount of 197, 199, 197, 89, 482, 479, 197, 196, 196, 196, 194, 196, 1946, 197.
F. The details and results of the request for a trial filed by the Plaintiff Company against the instant disposition of imposition and collection are as follows.
Agency
Imposition and Collection Disposition
Date of appeal
Date of adjudication decision
Judgment of the court below
Defendant
○ Head of tax office
Value-added tax on March 3, 2003
September 26, 2003
(A) The filing of an objection is made;
April 6, 2005
Dismissal of Claim
The corporate tax of July 4, 2003
September 26, 2003
Income tax on November 10, 2003
November 28, 2003
Previous Appeal
Additional Purpose
Defendant
○ Head of tax office
Value-added tax on March 10, 2003
September 23, 2003
April 11, 2005
Dismissal of Claim
2. Whether the instant disposition of imposition and collection is legitimate
A. The plaintiff company's assertion
(1) The director of ○○○ Tax Office had already discovered the fact that the company received processed tax invoices at the time of the first tax investigation of this case with respect to the same taxable year, tax item, and object of taxation as the disposition of this case, but did not impose a taxation thereon. However, the second tax investigation of this case was conducted again after the lapse of 2 years from the date of the first tax investigation of this case, even though there was no special change in circumstances. This disposition of this case violates the principle of prohibition of duplicate investigation under Article 81-3 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 6782 of Dec. 18, 2002) and Article 63-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17830 of Dec. 30, 202; hereinafter referred to as the "former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes"). Thus, the second tax investigation of this case is unlawful.
(2) The head of the tax office’s tax collection disposition of this case, after treating the difference in income between the first period and the first period in 1996 in 196 through 197 as the income accrued from the above tax adjustment, after treating the difference in income among the first period in 197 as the income accrued, and then disposing of it for recognition to Cho○ and Kim○○. The period for exclusion of withholding income tax under Article 26-2(1)3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes is five years from the date on which national tax can be imposed, and the final deadline for filing the tax return for filing the tax return for the first period due to the bonus between Cho○ and Kim○○ on February 10, 1998. Thus, the collection disposition of this case, which was notified on November 10, 2003 after five years or more, is unlawful.
(3) Defendant ○○○ Head of the Plaintiff Company deemed the representative between the Plaintiff Company’s first to 1 in 1996 as ○○ and ○○○ in 197. However, ○○ was merely a nominal representative director, and a person who actually operates the Plaintiff Company during the actual period is the Intervenor. Therefore, the income difference arising from the receipt of the above processing purchase tax is deemed to have been attributed to the Intervenor. As such, the instant collection disposition based on the premise that ○○ and ○○○○ was the substantial representative of the Plaintiff Company was unlawful.
(b) Related statutes;
Article 14 (Real Taxation of Framework Act on National Taxes)
(1) If the ownership of income, profit, property, act or transaction subject to taxation is merely nominal and a person to whom such ownership belongs exists, the tax-related Acts shall apply to such person to whom such person actually belongs as a taxpayer.
○ Article 26-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes (Period for Excluding Assessment of National Tax)
(1) No national tax may be levied after the period provided in the following subparagraphs expires: Provided, That where a mutual agreement procedure is in progress under the provisions of a treaty concluded to prevent double taxation (hereinafter referred to as "tax treaty"), Article 25 of the Adjustment of International Taxes Act shall apply:
1. Where a taxpayer evades a national tax, or receives a refund or deduction by fraudulent or other unlawful means, for ten years from the date on which the national tax is assessable;
3. If it does not fall under subparagraphs 1 and 2 above, for five years from the day on which the national tax is assessable; and
Article 27 (Extinctive Prescription of National Tax Collection Right)
(1) The State's right to collect national taxes shall be extinguished by prescription, if it is not exercised for five years from the time it is exercisable.
Article 81-3 (Prohibition of Overlapping Investigation)
Where obvious evidence exists to prove a suspicion of tax evasion, a tax official may not re-examine or re-examine the same item of tax and the same taxable period except for the cases as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, where it is necessary to conduct an investigation into the opposite contractual party, where there exist errors in connection with two or more business years, or where there exist other similar causes (amended by Act No. 6782, Dec. 18, 2002).
Article 12-3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes.
(1) The date when the national taxes may be assessed under the provisions of Article 26-2 (4) of the Act shall be as follows:
1. In filing a return on the tax base and amount of a national tax, the following day of the deadline for filing a return or a deadline for filing a return on the tax base and amount of the national tax (hereinafter referred to as "house for one's relocation, etc."). In such cases,
(2) On the dates set forth in the following subparagraphs, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1), national taxes may be levied (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18172, Dec. 30, 2003):
1. For the national taxes levied on the withholding agent or tax association, the day following the statutory due date for payment of the withheld or tax amount collected by the tax association;
Article 63-2 (Prohibition of Overlapping Investigation) of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes
The term “other cases similar thereto as prescribed by the Presidential Decree” in Article 81-3 of the Act means cases falling under any of the following subparagraphs (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 17830 of December 30, 2002):
1. Where a general investigation is undertaken against a person whose evasion of taxes is detrimental to the economic order through speculative investment in real estate, intermediary and hoarding, undertaking transactions without authentic documentation, etc.;
2. Either a reinvestigation for the handling of all kinds of assessment data, a confirmation investigation for determination of the national tax refund and re-revision without recourse to field investigation for taxation disposition pursuant to the provisions of Articles 81-4 and 81-7 of the Act.
Article 32 of the former Corporate Tax Act (Determination and Correction)
(5) In filing a report on the tax base of corporate tax under Article 26, or determining or revising the tax base of corporate tax under paragraphs (1) through (4), the amount included in the calculation of earnings shall be disposed of as bonus, dividend, other external outflow, internal reservation, etc. according to the person to whom the corporate tax belongs under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree (amended by Act No. 5581 of Dec. 28, 1998)
Article 94-2 (Disposition of Income)
(1) The amount included in the calculation of earnings under the provisions of Article 32 (5) of the Act shall be disposed of pursuant to the provisions of the following subparagraphs: The same shall apply to non-profit domestic corporations and non-profit foreign corporations (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15970, Dec. 31, 1998)
1. Where the amount included in the calculation of earnings has clearly leaked out of the company, it shall be the bonus, dividend, other income, and other outflow from the company from the disposition of profits according to the person to whom it reverts as follows: Provided, That where the accrual is unclear, it shall be deemed as accrual to the representative (where an executive who is an investor and a stockholder with a special relationship under Article 46-2 (3) together holds not less than 30/100 of the total number of issued stocks or total equity shares of the relevant corporation and the executive actually controls the operation of the relevant corporation, he/she shall be deemed the representative, and where a corporation is exempted from withholding taxes pursuant to the provisions of Articles 36 (5) and 40-5 (6) of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act and where there is a separate representative among the directors who are investors, the reported person shall be the representative, and where there are not less than
(b) If the person to whom it belongs is an officer or employee, it shall be the bonus to the person to whom it reverts;
Article 70 (Final Return on Global Income Tax)
(1) Any resident having global income amount in the current year, shall make a return on the tax base of global income to the chief of the tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment from May 1 to 31 of the year following the current year,
Article 127 of the Income Tax Act (Liability for Withholding)
(1) Any person who pays the following income or revenue amount to a resident or nonresident in Korea shall withhold the income tax on such resident or nonresident pursuant to the provisions of this Section:
4. Employment income amount of Class A;
Article 128 of the Income Tax Act (Payment of Withholding Tax)
A withholding agent shall pay the withheld income tax to the district tax office having jurisdiction over withholding, the Bank of Korea, or a postal agency by not later than the 10th of the month following the month in which the date of collection falls under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree: Provided, That the withholding agent prescribed by the Presidential Decree, in consideration of the number of regular employees, type of business, etc., may pay the withheld income tax by not later than the 10th of the month following the last month following the quarter in which the date of
Article 192 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (Fictitious Payment Date of Dividend, Bonus, and Other Incomes Obtained by Disposal of Income)
(1) When the head of a tax office or the director of a regional tax office determines or revises the corporate income amount under the Corporate Tax Act, he shall notify the corporation concerned by a notice of change in the income amount as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy within 15 days from the date of the determination or correction of the corporate income amount: Provided, That where the location of the corporation concerned is not clear or it is impossible to serve the notice, or where the corporation concerned falls under the provisions of Article 86 (1) 1, 2 and 4 of the National Tax Collection Act, he shall notify the relevant stockholder and the resident who received the disposition of the bonus or other income (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 18705, Feb. 19, 2005).
(2) In cases falling under paragraph (1), the relevant dividend, bonus, and other income shall be deemed paid or recovered on the date when such notice is received.
(3) In case of transmitting the income amount of a corporation, the dividend, bonus, and other incomes disposed of pursuant to Article 106 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act shall be deemed to have been paid by the relevant corporation on the date of reporting the tax base and amount of corporate tax (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18705, Feb. 19, 2005
(c) Fact of recognition;
The evidence and evidence of subparagraph 1, 2, 4-1, 5-1, 5-1, 3-1, 5-2, 5-1, 5-2, 5-1, 5-1, 5-2, 5-1, 3-1, 5-2, 5-1, 5-1, 5-2, 5-1, 5-2, 3-1, 5-2, 5-1, 6-1, 5-2, 3-1, 5-1, 5-2, 5-1, 6-1, 3-1, 5-2, 5-1, 5-2, 5-1, 5-2, 5-1, 5-2, 3-1, 5-1, 5-1, 5-2, 3-1, 5-2, 5-1, 3-1, 5-2, and 4-1, 3-2, 3-1, 3
(1) Circumstances leading to the establishment, operation, and tax evasion of the non-party company
㈎ 소외 회사는 참가인과 조○○경이 1987. 6. 23. 설립한 회사로서 반도체 클린룸(clean room) 특수바닥재 제조업 등을 영위하였고, 법인등기부상 1987. 6. 23.부터 1996. 12. 31.까지는 조○○이, 1997. 1. 1. 이후에는 김○○이 대표이사로 재임하였다.
㈏ 그런데 소외 회사의 업무집행에 관한 최종결재권은 참가인이 보유하고 있었고, 소외 회사의 자금관리도 참가인이 주도하였으며, 반면 조○○은 소외 회사에서 이사의 직함으로 대외적인 영업업무만을 담당하였다.
On the other hand, the transaction price of the non-party company was deposited into the account of the non-party company within several days after being deposited into the account of the non-party company, and deposited into the account of the non-party company through the borrowed name account in the name of the intervenor-friendly
㈐ 소외 회사는 1995 ~ 2001 사업연도에 걸쳐 주식회사 ○○○○ 외 26개 업체로부터 금 10,331,942,292원 및 과세특례자로부터 금 37,382,000원의 가공매입세금계산서를 수취하여 당해 과세기간의 부가가치세를 신고함에 있어 그 매입세액을 공제하고, 공금가액을 각 사업연도 법인세 신고시 손금에 산입하였으며, 참가인의 아들인 김○○에게 1996 ~ 2001 사업연도에 걸쳐 합계 금 105,870,200원의 급여를 지급한 것처럼 허위로 회계처리하고, 이를 당해 사업연도 법인세 신고시 손금에 산입하였다.
㈑ 이에 ○○세무서장은 2003. 8. 5. 소외 회사에 위 가공매입세금계산서 및 가공 급여 부분을 손금불산입하여 1998 ~ 2000 사업연도 법인세 합계 금 691,721,950원을 부과하고, 위 가공세금계산서와 가공급여에 따른 각 사업연도 소득차액을 소외 회사의 실질적 대표자인 참가인에게 인정사여로 소득처분하여 소외 회사에 소득금액변동통지를 하였으며, 이에 소외 회사는 그에 따른 소득세를 징수 · 납부하였다.
㈒ ○○○○지방법원은 2003. 10. 14. 2003고합751호로 ① 참가인이 1995. 1. 31.부터 같은 해 12. 30.까지 주식회사 ○○○○로부터 총 17차례에 걸쳐 합계 금 1,927,501,770원의 가공매입세금계산서를 수취하여 법인세 금 578,250,531원을 포탈하고, ② 참가인, 김○○이 공동하여 1997. 1. 10.부터 같은 해 12. 17.까지 주식회사 ○○○○ 등으로부터 총 34차례에 걸쳐 합계 금 2,950,914,050원의 가공매입세금계산서를 수취하여 법인세 금 826,255,934원을 포탈하였다는 공소사실에 대하여 특정범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률위반(조세)죄 등을 인정하여 참가인에게 징역 2년 6월에 집행유예 3년 및 벌금 15억원, 김○○에게 징역 2년 6월 및 벌금 9억원을 각 선고하였고(김○○에 대하여는 위 범죄사실 이외에 뇌물공여죄가 추가로 인정되었다), 위 판결은 그 항소심인 ○○고등법원이 2004. 2. 6. 선고 2003노2992호로 항소를 기각하고, 상고심인 대법원이 2005. 7. 28. 선고 2004도1557호로 상고를 기각함으로써 그대로 확정되었다.
㈓ ○○지방법원은 2006. 7. 13. 2005구합1805, 2005구합2549호로 소외 회사가 피고 ○○세무서장을 상대로 제기한 법인세부과처분취소 및 근로소득원천징수세 환급거부처분취소 사건에서 소외 회사의 실질적 대표자는 참가인으로서 피고 ○○세무서장이 위 가공매입세금계산서 및 가공급여에 따른 소득차액을 참가인에게 인정사여로 처분하고 소외 회사에 소득금액변동통지를 하여 근로소득세를 원천징수하도록 한 것은 적법하다는 등의 이유로 소외 회사의 청구를 기각하였다(현재 ○○고등법원 2006누1874, 2006누1904호로 항소심이 진행중이다).
(2) The details of the establishment and operation of the Plaintiff Company
㈎ 소외 회사는 회사의 자산규모가 커짐에 따라 관할세무서가 ○○세무서에서 ○○지방국세청으로 이관될 상황에 이르자 회사를 분리하여 ○○세무서의 관할을 유지하기로 하고, 1995. 10. 23. 자본금 2억원(발행주식 4만주, 액면금 5,000원)을 출자하여 원고 회사를 설립하였으나, 발행주식은 형식상 조○○ 외 7명(모두 소외 회사의 직원들이다) 명의로 분산시켜 두었다.
Name of shareholders
October 23, 1995
December 31, 1995
December 31, 1996
December 31, 1997
○ ○
12,000 Shares (30%)
12,000 Shares (30%)
42,000 Shares (30%)
42,000 Shares (30%)
○ ○
8,000 Shares (20%)
8,000 Shares (20%)
28,000 Shares (20%)
·
○ ○
8,000 Shares (20%)
·
·
·
○ Kim
6,000 Shares (15%)
6,000 Shares (15%)
21,000 note (15%)
·
○ ○
2,000 note (5%)
6,000 Shares (15%)
21,000 note (15%)
21,000 note (15%)
○ Kim
2,000 note (5%)
4,000 Shares (10%)
14,000 Shares (10%)
·
○ ○
1,600 Shares (4%)
4,000 Shares (10%)
14,000 Shares (10%)
·
Park ○
400 note (1%)
·
·
·
○ ○
·
·
·
28,000 Shares (20%)
sexual intercourse ○
·
·
·
21,000 note (15%)
Ma-○
·
·
·
28,000 Shares (20%)
Number of issued stocks
40,000 Shares
40,000 Shares
140,000 Shares
140,000 Shares
Plaintiff
The current status of shares issued after the incorporation of the company shall be as follows (The overall shares shall be the shares ratio):
㈏ 원고 회사는 설립 당시 소외 회사와 같은 사무실을 사용하면서, 업무집행 및 자금지급에 대하여는 참가인이 최종결재권을 행사하였고, 조○○은 소외 회사와 동일하게 영업이사의 직함으로 대외적인 영업업무만을 담당하였다.
On the other hand, the minutes of the board of directors held on October 23, 1995, March 26, 1996, and January 3, 1997, which were signed and sealed by ○○ as the chairperson of the board of directors (the rights of ○○, ○○○, and Kim○, all of which are signed and sealed as the director of the Plaintiff company in the above minutes), and the execution contract entered into between ○○○ and ○○○○○○, a corporation, on January 6, 1997, with the term “printed construction” in relation to “○○○○○ Factory Construction,” was written as the representative director of the Plaintiff company, and even in the minutes of the Plaintiff’s ordinary meeting of shareholders held on March 31, 1997, ○○ signed and sealed as the chairperson of the general meeting.
㈐ 그런데 조○○은 참가인이 자신의 영업실적에 상응한 처우를 해주지 않자 이에 불만을 품고 1997. 1. 3. 법인등기부상 원고 회사 대표이사직을 사임하였고, 이에 참가인은 조○○에게 원고 회사 경영권을 이전시켜 주겠다고 제의하였다(조○○은 같은 해 2. 4. 다시 원고 회사 대표이사로 취임하였다).
After that, on April 197, 1997, Cho○-○ opened a corporate account with the Plaintiff’s corporate director and 500 million won deposited from the Intervenor. On July 5 of the same year, the Intervenor and the Plaintiff Company were transferred the management rights of the Plaintiff Company from the Intervenor only by preparing a statement on the settlement of actual expenses of the Plaintiff Company.
㈑ 원고 회사는 ○○○○지방법원 99가단174555호로 소외 회사를 상대로 소외 회사가 소지하고 있는 원고 회사의 공장 및 법인 등록, 공장부지 및 건물 취득, 자동차구입시 각 매입한 지역개발공채, 국민주택채권, 도시철도공재 등의 반환을 구하는 증권인도 등 청구소송을 제기하였으나, 위 법원은 2000. 6. 30. 원고 회사는 참가인이 조○○을 명의상 대표이사로 등재시키고, 당시 소외 회사 임 · 직원들을 발기인으로 하여 설립하였으나, 당시 원고 회사는 사무실과 직원을 별도로 두지 아니한 채 소외 회사의 직원들이 원고 회사 명의로 업무를 수행하였으며, 조○○이 1996. 12. 31. 소외 회사 대표이사직을 사임한 이후 1997. 4. 1. 경에서야 비로소 원고 회사를 소외 회사와 분리하여 독립적인 물적 · 인적 시설을 갖춘 법인으로 운영하기 시작하였으므로 위 채권들은 소외 회사가 그의 비용으로 취득한 소외 회사의 소유라는 이유로 원고 회사의 청구를 기각하였다(위 판결은 그 항소심인 ○○○○지방법원 2000나49748호 사건이 항소취하 간주됨으로써 그대로 확정되었다).
(3) The details of the first tax investigation of this case
On March 16, 2000, the head of ○○○ Commissioner of the National Tax Service conducted a tax investigation on value-added tax and corporate tax for the business year from 1996 to 1999 based on the Plaintiff’s accounting books, etc., found that the Plaintiff Company omitted value-added tax and corporate tax by appropriating the processed material costs and labor costs as shown below in the above business year, and imposed value-added tax and corporate tax on the Plaintiff Company.
Classification
1996
1997
1998
199
Detection Details
Processed Materials
274,366,00 won
71,383,00 won
·
71,475,00 won
Processing Labor Cost
242,425,00 won
72,428,00 won
16,340,000
80,540,00 won
Other
·
·
·
149,483,00 won
Disposition of Imposition
Corporate Tax
49,474,00 won
64,852,00 won
1,336,00 won
5,235,00 won
Value-added Tax
9,280,000 won
17,095,00 won
·
9,670,000 won
(4) On February 1, 2002, the non-party company filed a complaint with ○○○○ District Prosecutors’ Office for embezzlement of funds of the non-party company, and the above District Prosecutors’ Office prosecuted ○○○ District Court for embezzlement on June 25 of the same year.
After that, the ○○○ District Court recognized the crime of embezzlement as to ○○○○○ on June 11, 2003 by 2002Da2695 Decided June 11, 2003, and sentenced 2 years of suspension of execution to 8 months of imprisonment. The appellate court reversed the judgment of the court below on August 28, 2003No5289 of the same year and sentenced 10 million won to ○○○○. The above judgment became final and conclusive by dismissing the appeal on November 27 of the same year.
(5) As a result of re-audit of the person to whom the disposition of income belongs upon the Plaintiff’s application for pre-assessment review, the director of the regional tax office of ○○○○ was notified on June 11, 2003 that the Plaintiff’s non-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub
D. Determination
(1) Whether the prohibition of double investigation is violated
Article 81-3 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes provides that a tax official may not conduct a reinvestigation on the same item of tax and the same taxable period except in the case where there is clear evidence to prove a suspicion of tax evasion. Unlike the first tax investigation of this case, the second tax investigation of this case was conducted by the active report of tax evasion attached to the documents from Kim ○, a representative director of the non-party company and the plaintiff company, and as a result, in full view of the circumstances where the fact that the plaintiff company actually omitted value-added tax and corporate tax evasion was discovered, the second tax investigation of this case is a tax investigation based on evident evidence to prove a suspicion of tax evasion, and it cannot be deemed that the second tax investigation of this case violates the principle of prohibition of duplicate investigation
In regard to this, the Plaintiff Company asserted that the director of the regional tax office of ○○○○ (the director of the regional tax office) has reserved the disposition of imposing the value-added tax and the corporate tax, even though the existence of the processed tax invoice already discovered at the time of the instant secondary tax investigation, but there is no evidence to acknowledge such assertion by the Plaintiff Company.
Plaintiff
This part of the company's argument is without merit.
(2) Whether the collection disposition of this case complies with the exclusion period of imposition
㈎ 먼저, 이 사건 징수처분의 근거가 된 조○○과 김○○에 대한 근로소득세 부과제척기간 부분을 보건대, 국세기본법 제26조의2 제1항 제1호에 의하면 납세자가 '사기 기타 부정한 행위로서 국세를 포탈하거나 환급 · 공제받은 경우에는 당해 국세를 부과 할 수 있는 날부터 10년간' 국세를 부과할 수 있다고 규정하고 있고, 여기서 '사기 기타 부정한 행위'란 조세의 부과와 징수를 불가능하게 하거나 현저히 곤란하게 하는 위계 기타 부정한 적극적 행위를 말하는 것으로서 다른 어떤 행위를 수반함이 없이 단순히 세법상의 신고를 하지 아니하거나 허위의 신고를 함에 그치는 것은 여기에 해당하지 아니한다고 할 것인데(대법원 2003. 2. 14. 선고 2001도3797 판결 참조), 원고 회사는 실물거래 없이 6개 업체로부터 30억원 상당의 가공매입세금계산서를 수위하여 부가가치세 신고시 이를 매입세액으로 공제하고, 법인세 신고시 그 공급가액을 손금에 산입함으로써 부가가치세와 법인세를 포탈하였는바, 이는 과세관청의 조세 부과와 징수를 불가능하게 하거나 현저하게 곤란하게 하는 적극적 행위로서 국세기본법 제26조의2 제1항 제1호 소정의 사기 기타 부정한 행위에 해당한다고 할 것이다.
Therefore, the exclusion period for imposition of the above value-added tax and corporate tax evasion portion of the Plaintiff company shall be ten years from the date following the expiration date of the reporting period for the pertinent taxable period and the corporate tax pursuant to Article 26-2 (1) 1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes. In this regard, the exclusion period for imposition of the income tax for 10 years shall also apply to the case where the provisional park due to fraudulent or other unlawful acts is included in the calculation of deductible expenses and where the income tax is imposed by treating the difference of income as the representative. Thus, the exclusion period for imposition of the income tax for 196 and 197 as a result of the recognition and contribution to the Cho ○ and Kim ○ shall also be until May 31, 2007 and May 31, 2008, which is the day following the global income tax return deadline under Article 70 (1) of the Income Tax Act.
㈏ 다음으로, 이 사건 징수처분의 징수권소멸시효 부분을 보건대, 구 소득세법(1998. 12. 28. 법률 제5580호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제127조, 제128조는 원천징수의무자는 원천징수한 소득세를 그 징수일이 속하는 달의 다음달 10일까지 납부하도록 규정하고 있고, 구 소득세법 시행령(2005. 2. 19. 대통령령 제18705로 개정되기 전의 것) 제192조 제1항, 제2항은 세무서장은 법인소득금액을 결정 또는 경정함에 있어 상여로 처분되는 소득은 그 결정일 또는 경정일부터 15일 내에 소득금액변동통지서에 의하여 당해 법인에 통지하여야 하며, 그 경우 상여는 그 통지서를 받은 날에 지급한 것으로 본다고 규정하고 있는바, 앞서 본 바와 같이 피고 ○○세무서장은 원고 회사의 소득차액을 조○○과 김○○에 대한 인정사여로 처분하여 2003. 7. 3. 및 같은 해 8. 11. 원고 회사에 소득금액변동통지를 하였으므로, 조○○과 김○○에 대한 상여는 같은 날 지급된 것으로 의제되고, 그에 의한 원천징수소득세 징수권 소멸시효기간은 국세기본법 제27조 제1항에 따라 그 다음달 10일로부터 5년이 경과되는 2008. 8. 10. 및 같은 해 9. 10.이 된다고 할 것이다.
㈐ 따라서, 이 사건 징수처분은 조○○과 김○○에 대한 소득세 부과제척기간 및 그 징수권소멸시효 기간 내에 고지된 것으로서 적법하다고 할 것이다.
Plaintiff
This part of the company's assertion is without merit.
(3) The portion of the Plaintiff Company’s non-distinct income
㈎ 먼저, 피고 ○○세무서장의 원고 회사에 대한 1996년 제1기 내지 1997년 제1기 사이의 세무조정시 발생한 소득차액이 참가인에게 실지 귀속되었는지 여부를 보건대, 위 인정사실만으로는 위 소득이 참가인에게 실지 귀속되었다고 인정하기에 부족하고, 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없으므로, 위 소득차액은 사외로 유출된 귀속불분명 소득이라고 할 것이다.
㈏ 다음으로, 위 귀속불분명 소득이 인정사여로 귀속될 원고 회사의 대표자가 누구인지 여부를 보건대, 법인세법령상 대표자에 대한 인정상여제도는 그 대표자에게 그러한 소득이 발행한 사실에 바탕을 두는 것이 아니라 법인에 의한 세법상의 부당행위를 방지하기 위하여 그러한 행위로 인정될 수 있는 일정한 사실에 대하여 그 실질에 관계없이 무조건 대표자에게 상여로 간주하도록 하는데 그 취지가 있는 것으로서, 이와 같은 경우 상여처분의 대상이 되는 법인의 대표자는 제한적으로 엄격히 해석하여야 하며(대법원 1994. 3. 8. 선고 93누1176 판결 참조), 회사의 법인등기부상 대표자로 등재되어 있더라도 당해 회사를 실질적으로 운영한 사실이 없다면 그 회사의 귀속불명소득을 그에게 귀속시켜 종합소득세를 부과할 수 없다(대법원 1989. 4. 11. 선고 88누3802 판결 참조).
㈐ 위와 같은 법리에 비추어 법인등기부상 대표자로 등재되어 있던 조○○과 김○○이 1996년 제1기 내지 1997년 제1기 사이에 원고 회사를 실질적으로 운영한 대표자였는지 여부를 보건대, 앞서 본 바와 같이 원고 회사의 법인등기부상 조○○은 1995. 10. 23.부터 1997. 1. 3.까지 및 1997. 2. 4.부터 2004. 3. 30.까지, 김○○은 1997. 1. 3.부터 같은 해 2. 4.까지 각 원고 회사의 대표이사로 등재되어 있었던 사실은 인정되나, 반면 ① 원고 회사는 소외 회사가 자산규모의 확대에 따라 관할 세무서가 변경될 상황에 처하게 되자 형식상 반도체 클린룸 시공 부분을 독립시켜 설립한 회사이나, 설립 이후에도 소외 회사와 같은 사무실을 사용하고, 직원들을 공유하는 등 명목상의 회사에 불과하였다는 점, ② 조○○과 김○○은 원고 회사의 대표이사로 등재되어 있기는 하였으나 회사의 실질적인 경영은 참가인이 최종결재권자로서 주도하고 있었고, 조○○은 단지 이사라는 직함으로 대외적인 영업업무만을 담당한 점, ③ 김○○은 조○○이 참가인의 회사 운영에 불만을 품고 1997. 1. 3. 원고 회사 대표이사직을 사임하였다가 다시 복귀하기까지 한 달 정도 원고 회사의 대표이사로 등재되어 있었을 뿐인점, ④ 그 후 참가인은 1997. 7. 5.경 조○○과 실비정산내역서를 작성함으로써 원고회사 경영권을 조○○에게 양도한 점, ⑤ 참가인이 소외 회사의 사실상 대표자로서 가공매입세금계산서를 수취한 주식회사 ○○○○은 원고 회사가 수취한 가공매입세금계산서의 발행회사와 동일한 점, ⑥ 조○○이 원고 회사 이사회 의사록 및 주주총회 의사록 등에 대표이사의 직위에서 서명 · 날인한 것은 법인등기부상 대표이사로 등재되어 있었기 때문에 형식을 갖추기 위한 것으로 보이는 점 등 변론에 나타난 제반사정을 종합하면, 참가인이 1997. 7. 5.경 조○○에게 원고 회사의 실질적인 경영권을 양도하기 전까지 원고 회사를 실질적으로 운영한 대표자는 참가인이라고 할 것이고, 조○○과 김○○은 원고 회사의 경영에 관여한바 없이 명목상 대표이사로 등재되어 있었던 것에 불과하다고 할 것이다.
As to this, since the intervenor actually operated the plaintiff company from the time of the establishment of the intervenor, the intervenor claims that he was in charge of only overseas business and technical part, the intervenor's assertion that Eul evidence Nos. 18, Eul evidence Nos. 19-1, 2, 3, and Eul evidence Nos. 19-2, 20, and 21 and some testimony of the witness Kim ○ (the intervenor) are difficult to believe as it is in light of the above circumstances, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the above argument of the intervenor cannot be accepted.
㈑ 따라서, 1996년 제1기 내지 1997년 제1기 사이의 원고 회사 대표자가 조○○과 김○○임을 전제로 그들에게 위 기간 중에 발생한 원고 회사의 소득을 인정상여로 처분하고, 이를 따른 소득세를 징수 · 고지한 이 사건 징수처분은 위법하다.
Plaintiff
This part of the company's argument is with merit.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.