In the case of fraud or other unlawful act, the exclusion period of 10 years is applied.

Since it is recognized that the active concealment of the intention to evade tax was objectively revealed, the exclusion period for imposition of ten years is applied.

Article 26-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes (Period for Excluding Assessment of National Taxes)

2016Guhap10263 Confirmation of invalidity of imposition of global income tax

OO

O Head of tax office

2017.05.16

2017.06.20

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The defendant confirms that the imposition of global income tax imposed by the defendant against the plaintiff is invalid.O.O.O.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff reported and paid the total amount of revenue to the head of the OO.O.O. (O.) and the global income tax for the year OO as OO. (O.).

"OO.O.O.O.O.A. consented to the handling of bankruptcy or individual rehabilitation cases using the Plaintiff's name as an attorney-at-law, and the above judgment was finalized in OO.O.O.O.O.O.O., and the defendant revised the tax amount by increasing the Plaintiff's comprehensive income tax for OO's total income (hereinafter referred to as "the disposition in this case").

(Ground of recognition), Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, and 5 (a serial number)

Each entry, the whole purport of the pleading; hereinafter the same shall apply)

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff’s global income tax that belongs to the Plaintiff’s OO year is five years since the Plaintiff’s global income tax was not simply reported under the tax law or made a false report, and the initial date is OO.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O. that it was obvious that five years have elapsed since the initial date. The instant disposition was null and void since the exclusion period expired.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) The legislative intent of Article 26-2(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 8830, Dec. 31, 2007; hereinafter the same) is to extend the exclusion period of imposition of national taxes to 10 years because it is difficult for the tax authorities to find out that there is any unlawful act, such as making it difficult to identify the taxation requirements of national taxes or forging facts, and it is difficult to expect the exercise of the imposition right. Therefore, the term “Fraud or other unlawful act” under Article 26-2(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes refers to a deceptive scheme or other unlawful act that makes it impossible to impose and collect taxes impossible or considerably difficult, and it does not constitute mere failure to file a return under the tax law or making a false report without accompanying any other act, but it is objectively difficult to determine whether there is a false declaration or false way of imposition of national taxes, such as making it difficult to determine whether there is a false declaration or false statement in the books, and whether it is objectively difficult to impose taxes or false.

2) In light of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence, etc. as seen earlier, it should be determined that the Plaintiff, rather than simply failing to file a return under tax law or filing a false return, was “Fraud or other unlawful act objectively revealed” with the intent to evade the comprehensive income tax. Therefore, the exclusion period for imposition of global income tax belonging to the Plaintiff’s OOO year is 10 years, and the instant disposition is lawful, and the prior Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise is without merit.

(1) The global income tax at issue in the instant case is a tax return method in which the taxpayer voluntarily filed a tax base and amount of tax and thereby becomes final and conclusive by filing a tax return, so long as the taxpayer does not voluntarily file a lawful return, the tax authority is difficult to gather the omission and impose tax. The Plaintiff did not at all file a return on the global income tax even though the Plaintiff received the OO won in total from AA to the attorney-at-law fee for OO cases.

(2) The entries in the final return on global income tax submitted by the Plaintiff through an OO.O.O.O.O. agent and the entries in the account book prepared and kept by the Plaintiff appear to be the same. In light of the scale, frequency, etc. of the attorney-at-law’s name lending fees not reported by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff may be deemed to have intentionally failed to enter them in the account book in order to make it impossible for the tax authority to verify the details of revenue, not to simply omit the revenue details.

(3) The Plaintiff issued tax invoices, credit card sales slips, cash receipts to the clients of the case.

The transaction evidence, such as not doing so, did not remain.

(4) In fact, the Defendant confirmed the omission of the Plaintiff’s revenue amount and ordered the instant disposition only after the said criminal judgment was rendered.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as there is no ground.