Daegu District Court 2007Guhap1912 (Law No. 16, 2008)

early 207Guhap1912, 2008.16

Whether the notice of change in the amount of income is premised on the effect of the revision of the corporate tax base.

If the disposition of corporate tax correction and the disposition of bonus for the representative director are made against the corporation and the representative director receives the notice of change in the amount of income, the detailed and disposition of global income for the representative director is legitimate regardless of whether the notice of change in the amount of income or the correction

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

Article 21 (Establishment Date of Liability for Tax Payment)

Article 66 (Determination and Correction)

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part concerning the plaintiffs' claim against the defendant Matri Tax Office is revoked, and the plaintiffs' claim corresponding to the cancelled part is dismissed.

2. The appeal by the Plaintiff ○○’s head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the address of the Defendant is dismissed.

3. The plaintiffs bear the total costs of the lawsuit between the plaintiffs and the defendant Yeong-gu Tax Office, and the costs of appeal between the plaintiff 2 and the defendant 2 shall be borne by the plaintiff 00.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

On March 2, 2006, the head of Yigue Tax Office confirmed that the disposition of income in KRW 45,580,700 against the Plaintiff’s uniforms was null and void.

The disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 17,88,403 against the Plaintiff, ○○ on April 7, 2006 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the place of residence in the Defendant: (a) notified the head of ○○ Tax Office of the receipt of the processing tax invoice of KRW 41,437,000 for the supply price in the taxable period of the value-added tax for the first year of 2000, and then instead deducted the input tax amount on November 2, 2005; and (b) notified the Defendant of the fact that he received the processing tax invoice of KRW 41,437,000 for the supply price in the taxable period of the value-added tax, and deducted the input tax amount. (c) On November 2, 2005, the value-added tax was increased to KRW 9,339,890 for 200 for 200 for 3,39,890 for 200 for 200 for the Plaintiff.

B. Accordingly, on March 2, 2006, the director of the tax office of Cheongsung Tax Office added the supply price of 41,437,00 won as stated in the above processing purchase tax invoice to deductible expenses, and corrected the corporate tax base for the business year 200 from 823,036,948 to -78 won (no tax amount is notified; hereinafter referred to as "the corporate tax base correction disposition of this case") and the non-deductible amount of the above 41,437,00 won and the value-added tax amount of 45,580,700 won in addition to deductible expenses were leaked and it is unclear that it reverts to the Plaintiff ○○○○, the representative director of ○○○, the representative director of the Plaintiff ○○, should belong to the bonus for the Plaintiff ○○○, and by serving the Plaintiff ○○, the notice of change in the income amount as stated in the corporate tax disposition of this case to the Plaintiff 200,3706.

C. The head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the address of the Defendant: (a) the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the address of the Plaintiff did not pay the aggregate income tax to be paid additionally in accordance with the notice on the change in the above income amount; (b) the bonus amount of KRW 45,580,70,00, which belongs to the Plaintiff Lee Jong-soo upon the disposition of the above income; (c) added the global income tax base and tax amount of the global income tax for the year 2000 to the global income tax amount of KRW 37,792,80 on April 7, 2006; and (d) the amount of the global income tax for the Plaintiff Lee ○-bok imposed the additional tax for the global income amount of KRW 37,792,800 on December 13, 207; and (e) the amount of the global income tax imposed on KRW 4,05,264 and KRW 15,849,139,97,397.

D. On October 27, 2006, Plaintiff Lee Dong-bok filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal, but received a decision of dismissal on April 13, 2007.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 6 to 10, Eul evidence 16 to 18, Eul evidence 23 to 26 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the claims for nullification of this case is legitimate

A. The part demanding nullification of the corrective disposition of the corporate tax base of this case

The plaintiff ○ Mine filed a claim to nullify the invalidity of the disposition of correcting the corporate tax base of this case after the exclusion period for imposition was imposed, and thus, it is not an administrative disposition which is the object of appeal litigation, and the lawsuit seeking confirmation of this part of the disposition is unlawful.

On the other hand, the decision of corporate tax base is prior to the decision of corporate tax assessment and does not take effect immediately, but at the later date, there is no way to dispute the disposition of tax assessment when the corporate tax and the tax assessment are made (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Nu12842, Sept. 24, 1996). Thus, the decision of corporate tax base cannot be deemed an administrative disposition that is the object of appeal litigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Nu12842, Sept. 24, 1996). In this case, where the head of Matri Tax Office only corrected the tax base for the business year of 200 years of ○○, but did not take a separate disposition, the disposition of correcting the corporate tax base of this case cannot be deemed an independent administrative disposition that is the object of appeal litigation

B. The part of the claim to nullify the disposition of this case

Inasmuch as the instant disposition of income does not specify the bonus disposition in the document, such as the corporate tax base determination resolution, the Plaintiff’s ○○ Tax Office asserted that the instant disposition of income is null and void, and thus, the Plaintiff’s ○○ Tax Office’s claim that the instant disposition of income is unlawful as it is merely a prior procedure of the disposition of income, and thus, it cannot be deemed an administrative disposition that is subject to appeal litigation.

In light of the above, in case where the tax authority made a disposition of income as bonus to an officer or employee and the tax authority made a disposition of income as the relevant amount of income as the payer of the income concerned, unlike the fact that the obligation to provide the source quota is established on the date when the notice on the change of income amount was served on the corporation, the person to whom the income belongs shall be subject to taxation of the income tax as bonus under Article 20 (1) 1 (c) of the Income Tax Act if the disposition of income is made regardless of whether or not the notice on the change of income amount was served on the corporation, and the amount of income shall be subject to taxation of the income tax as the date when the person to whom the income belongs was first supplied during the pertinent business year in which the tax amount is subject to disposition of global income tax, and the amount of income shall not be subject to taxation of the global income tax (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Du9494, Jul. 27, 2006).

In light of the above legal principles, the disposition of this case does not constitute an administrative disposition that is subject to appeal litigation, and thus, the lawsuit of this case filed by the plaintiff Lee ○○ seeking the invalidity of the disposition of this case is lawful (see Supreme Court Decision 87Nu902, Jul. 25, 1989; Supreme Court Decision 87Nu902, Jul. 25, 1989; and even if the purport of this part of the plaintiff Lee ○○’s claim is included in the plaintiff’s claim as well as the claim seeking the invalidity of the notice of change in the amount of income that is based on the above disposition, the notice of change in the amount of income delivered to the plaintiff Lee ○○ is used for the notification of the income earner, and the effect of the notification does not extend to the plaintiff Lee ○○, and thus, the plaintiff Lee ○ is not subject to withholding tax against the plaintiff Lee ○, and thus, the lawsuit of this part of this case is unlawful).

3. Whether the instant disposition of global income tax was lawful

The disposition of this case is based on the premise that the disposition of correction of the corporate tax base of this case is valid, and the disposition of correction of the corporate tax base of this case was null and void since it was notified to the plaintiff ○○ on August 20, 2007 with five years of the exclusion period of imposition of the corporate tax, and it was made before that takes effect. The disposition of this case is null and void since the plaintiff ○○○ received the processed purchase tax invoice from ○ Metal, which is the customer, and did not deduct the input tax amount. Thus, the disposition of this case is unlawful since the disposition of disposition of correction and invalidation of the corporate tax base of this case, or illegal disposition of disposition of disposition of imposition of global income tax of this case which the defendant ○○ by the head of the tax office at the location of

B. Relevant statutes

Article 21 (Establishment Date of Liability for Tax Payment)

Article 66 (Determination and Correction)

C. Determination

(1) Whether the disposition to revise the corporate tax base of this case is null and void

As seen earlier, the decision of corporate tax base is prior to the decision of corporate tax assessment, but it does not take effect immediately, and there is no way to dispute the decision of corporate tax assessment when there is a tax assessment on the later date. Thus, the decision of corporate tax base cannot be deemed an administrative disposition which becomes the object of appeal litigation. The decision of corporate tax correction takes effect only when it is notified to the taxpayer. Thus, unlike the fact that the decision of corporate tax assessment becomes effective before the expiration of the exclusion period of corporate tax assessment, if the corporate tax assessment is corrected without any change in corporate tax amount (if the total amount of income increases compared to the initial decision, but the total amount of income does not fall short of the total amount of deductible expenses recognized in the initial decision, the correction of corporate tax base was made only after the lapse of the exclusion period of corporate tax assessment). Thus, the plaintiff's decision of corporate tax assessment cannot be deemed null and void after the lapse of the exclusion period of corporate tax assessment. Thus, the plaintiff's decision of correction was made after the lapse of the exclusion period of corporate tax assessment.

Although the disposition of the corporate tax base of this case shall take effect only if it is notified to the taxpayer who is obligated to pay the corporate tax, as alleged by the plaintiff Lee Jong-soo, the disposition of this case is a procedure of ex post facto confirmation of the income that is already reverted to a specific taxable year in order to impose the income tax under the Income Tax Act by specifying who is included in the amount included in the calculation of the corporate tax in the return, determination or correction of the corporate tax base as seen above, if the amount included in the calculation of the income is leaked to anyone other than the company, and it is a procedure of confirming the income that is already reverted to the specific taxable year in order to impose the income tax under the Income Tax Act. Even though the corporate tax base of this case is prescribed in the Corporate Tax Act, the determination of the corporate tax base of the corporate tax is prior to the disposition of the corporate tax, and the disposition of the income is prior to the disposition of the income tax, which differs from the purpose of the disposition of the imposition of the corporate tax and the taxation of the income tax. Thus, the determination or correction of the corporate tax base of this case does not affect the validity of the disposition of this case.

(2) Whether the disposition of this case is invalid or unlawful

First, as to the claim that the disposition of this case was made before the notice of correction of the corporate tax base of this case was issued, the disposition of this case is null and void, not only after the correction of the corporate tax base was notified to the corporation, but also after the correction of the corporate tax base is notified to the corporation, the disposition of this case does not take effect. The disposition of this case takes effect when the notice of change of the income amount stating the contents of the disposition of this case is served to the corporation or to the person to whom the income belongs pursuant to Article 192 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act. Thus, as seen earlier, the disposition of this case takes effect as long as the plaintiff ○ received it on March 3, 2006 by delivering the notice of change in the income amount for notification of the income earner, which entered the contents of the disposition of this case to the plaintiff ○○. Thus, the above assertion of the plaintiff ○

Next, according to the claim that the disposition of this case is null and void because the person to whom the disposition of this case was taken is not indicated in the income disposition document, according to the statement in No. 6, No. 7, and No. 9-1 of the evidence No. 9, the head of the tax office of YU has issued the corporate tax base for the business year -823,036,948 won from -78 won to -781,59,948 won with respect to the plaintiff ○○○○○, and then stated the type of the disposition for the amount of 45,580,70 won in each processing purchase (1) and the investigation document (4-1) with respect to each processing purchase (4-1), and it can be acknowledged that the person to whom the income was reverted is the plaintiff ○○ even in the review document of the disposition of taxation data. Thus, the above disposition of this case is not specified in the statement that the income belongs to the plaintiff ○○.

Finally, since ○○○○○○○○○ received the processed purchase tax invoice from ○○ Metal, which is a business partner and deducted the input tax amount, the Plaintiff’s claim that the disposal of the instant income was unlawful, the Plaintiff’s health care contractor’s use of the cost alleged by the taxpayer and the other party to the payment of the cost would be proved to be false, and as long as the Plaintiff alleged that there was a considerable amount of other cost expenditure as stated in the taxpayer’s return, it should be deemed that there is a need to prove that the taxpayer could have easily presented all data, including the account book and evidence regarding the specific cost expenditure, regarding the existence and amount of other cost for the Plaintiff’s return, as long as the Plaintiff’s ○○○○○○○○ received the processed purchase tax invoice from 00,000,000 won or more, the total amount of the input tax invoice issued from 5-1 to 4-5, 198, 197, 207, 2008, 20047, 207.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, among the claims in this case, the part on the confirmation of invalidity of the correction disposition of the tax base of the corporate tax in this case and the part on the confirmation of invalidity of the income disposition in this case by the plaintiff Lee Jong-soo's Lee, respectively, shall be dismissed as it is unlawful and dismissed, and the part on the claim against the plaintiff Lee Jong-soo's head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the disposition of the global income tax in this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The part on the claim against the plaintiff Lee Jong-soo's head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the disposition of the global income tax in this case among the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the claim against the defendant Lee Jong-soo's head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the disposition of the global income tax in this case is just in this conclusion, but the part on the claim against the plaintiff Lee Jong-dae's head