Review Division 2012-0158 (Law No. 25, 2013)

Judgment of a criminal case does not constitute a ground for filing a subsequent request for correction.

It should be interpreted that transactions, acts, etc. which are the basis for calculating the tax base and the amount of tax are transparently disputed in the trial process, and it shall be limited to the cases such as judgments of civil cases in which the existence and legal effects, etc. are objectively verified, and judgments, voluntary adjustment, compulsory adjustment, and settlement in the trial, etc. by confessions who can be easily determined by the protocol, etc.

Article 45-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2012Guhap5467 and revocation of revocation of a request for rectification of global income tax

Yellow AA

Head of North Busan District Tax Office

March 8, 2013

March 22, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s refusal to rectify the global income tax of KRW 000 on October 18, 2012 and KRW 000 on global income tax of KRW 2006, which was paid to the Plaintiff on October 18, 2012, shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a business operator who has engaged in the scrap metal wholesale business, etc. under the trade name of "OO resources" from Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan Government 000.

B. On August 1, 2011, the Defendant issued a revised and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 000 of the value-added tax for the second period of 2006 (including additional tax) on the ground that the Plaintiff omitted filing a report on the sale of non-data on the OO trade (hereinafter “OO trade”).

C. In addition, on January 25, 2007, when the Plaintiff reported the value-added tax for the second period portion of the year 2006, it was charged as Busan District Court Decision 2012Da318, Jan. 12, 2012 on the ground that the Plaintiff violated the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act by evading sales in a way that did not issue a tax invoice, and by omitting sales in a way that did not issue a tax invoice; on May 31, 2007, when filing a global income tax return on May 31, 2007, the Plaintiff was charged as the Plaintiff on January 12, 2012 on the ground that the actual amount of sales was reduced to KRW 00,000, while the actual amount of income was reduced to KRW 000,000, and thereby evading the tax amount

D. On August 24, 2012, the above court found the Plaintiff guilty on the part of value-added tax of KRW 000, global income tax of KRW 000, global income tax of KRW 000, and found the Plaintiff not guilty on the part of the machine for lack of evidence, sentenced the Plaintiff not guilty on the ground of lack of evidence, sentenced the Defendant to 10 months in the previous year, 2 years in the suspended sentence, and 160 hours in community service, and the judgment was finalized on September

E. Accordingly, on September 5, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a request with the Defendant for rectification to the effect that the Plaintiff would have reduced the amount of the non-guilty portion of the value-added tax and global income tax initially imposed upon the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 45-2(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and against this, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the refusal on October 18, 2012 on the ground that the Plaintiff’s request for rectification does not fall under the above provision (hereinafter “instant refusal disposition”).

[Ground of Recognition] The non-satched facts, Gap evidence 1, 3 through 6, and Eul evidence 2, 3, and 4 (including separate numbers, if any), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the rejection disposition of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The defendant, upon the plaintiff's introduction, deemed that the plaintiff sold OO trading of those who sold GGGG to O trading as non-materials, and was found not guilty of some tax evasion activities under the premise of O trading between the plaintiff and OO trading. Accordingly, 00 won of the value-added tax (=00 won prosecuted - sentenced amount of 000 won - sentenced amount of 000 won) and 000 won of the global income tax (guilty amount of 000 won - sentenced amount of 000 won) among the global income tax, since the transaction or act based on the calculation of the tax base and tax amount becomes final and conclusive as different by the judgment, the plaintiff's request for correction is unlawful and revoked.

B. Relevant statutes

Paper in the Appendix

C. Determination

The purpose of the ex post facto request for correction is to expand the protection of taxpayers' rights by allowing taxpayers to claim reduction of their tax base and amount when there occurs a change in the basis for calculating the tax base and amount of tax after the establishment of the tax liability. Unlike the general request for correction, those who do not submit a tax base return within the statutory due date of return shall be allowed, and those who do not receive restrictions on the period for filing the general request for correction, and those who do not submit a tax base return within the statutory due date of return shall not be subject to the principle of substantial taxation and other principles under other tax laws, and those who are the basis for calculating the tax base and amount of tax "when it is confirmed to be different by the judgment, etc. in the lawsuit related to it" means that the transactions or acts based on which the tax base and amount of tax are calculated are transparent in the trial process, and that it is difficult to find the plaintiff guilty of the remaining facts of tax evasion or amount of tax evasion, and that it is difficult to find the plaintiff guilty of the remaining facts of tax evasion or omission by the judgment of 20 years or omission, and that it is difficult to interpret the conclusion.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.