Effect of taxation without specifying the basis for calculation of tax base, tax rate, etc. (=reasons for cancellation)

If the basis of calculation, such as the tax base and tax rate, is not specified in the taxation disposition, the taxation disposition is not invalid but can be revoked.

Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Supreme Court Decision 83Nu657 Decided April 10, 1984

[Defendant-Appellant] Shsheshes Gashes Kim Young-young, Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellant-appellant

The director of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 82Gu603 delivered on December 28, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. If the court below did not specify the basis for calculating the tax amount under Article 32 of the former Business Tax Act, Article 76 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 9 (1) of the National Tax Collection Act in the notice of tax payment of the business tax of this case as determined by the court below, the tax disposition of this case is unlawful and thus it cannot be exempted from revocation. Thus, the judgment below is just and there is no

2. This paper is as follows: (a) Articles 16(4) and 58 of the Framework Act on National Taxes stipulate that a taxpayer may be allowed to peruse or copy the investigation decision or related documents by the tax authority; (b) however, the provision demanding the taxpayer to state the basis for calculating the amount of tax on the grounds that the taxpayer is guaranteed an opportunity for such perusal, reproduction, etc. cannot be considered as a mere decoration provision; and (c) as such, whether the taxpayer actually knows the basis for calculating the amount of tax such as tax base and tax rate, etc. and then leads to the litigation cannot be determined or cured; and (d) the Plaintiff’s assertion of such illegality in the appeal proceedings is without having asserted such illegality in the appeal proceedings, and thus, it cannot be deemed as going against the party member’s precedent pointing this issue out.

3. The cancellation of an administrative disposition, like the disposition of this case, which lacks legitimate requirements, cannot be deemed to constitute a case where it is considerably inappropriate for public welfare as provided in Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act, and the defendant's own knowledge of the defect in the disposition of this case and continues a dispute without setting the time, thereby denying the interests of the lawsuit on the grounds of economic, time, and mental waste, is nothing more than a single theory. If the basis for calculation such as the tax base, tax rate, etc. is not specified in the disposition of this case, the disposition of this case is not null and void but also constitutes a ground for cancellation (see Supreme Court Decision 83Nu657, Apr. 10, 1984). It is also the same purport at the time of the original adjudication (see Supreme Court Decision 83Nu657, Apr. 10, 1984). Thus, it is clear from its own opinion that the original adjudication of this case, under the premise that the revocation of the disposition of this case is revoked, and it is not justified.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)