Appellate Court 2015Gu1417(20 April 2015)

If the Plaintiff did not report the tax base of capital gains tax due to the absence of laws or errors, etc., the imposition of penalty tax is legitimate.

Even if the Plaintiff did not report the tax base of capital gains tax due to the absence of laws or errors, such circumstance alone alone does not constitute a justifiable ground for not misunderstanding the Plaintiff’s duty to perform, and thus, the imposition of additional tax is legitimate.

Article 48 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2015Guhap8777 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Additional Tax

KimA

Head of North Daegu Tax Office

July 1, 2015

August 12, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On January 14, 2015, the former Cheong-dong Co., Ltd. revoked each imposition of additional tax OO on the capital gains tax of 2012 that was made against the Plaintiff on January 14, 2015 and the imposition of additional tax OO on the special rural development tax of 2012.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff owned KRW 12-3,702 square meters of forests and fields in Gyeongbuk-gun, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “the instant forest”) and was affiliated with the State around September 2012 after being assigned to the Highway construction project. B. On September 25, 2012, the Korea Housing Corporation, a project operator, deposited the Plaintiff as the principal deposit, and the Plaintiff received the payment on March 26, 2013. The Plaintiff did not report the capital gains tax base of the instant forest. On January 8, 2015, the Defendant filed a request for a judgment and notification of the KRW OO (hereinafter “instant disposition”) including the capital gains tax and additional tax return and additional tax return on KRW 12-3,00,000 with the Plaintiff on September 25, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a request for a judgment with the Tax Tribunal on each of the instant dispositions (hereinafter “the instant disposition”). However, the Plaintiff filed a request for a judgment on May 26, 2015, respectively.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In the event that the State expropriates the land and pays the compensation, it was unaware of whether the transfer income tax should be reported and paid accordingly, and the defendant has not notified the plaintiff thereof. Therefore, the part of imposing additional tax in the disposition of this case is based on the legal non-existence of the plaintiff.

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

Under the tax law, penalty taxes are administrative sanctions imposed as prescribed by the law in order to facilitate the exercise of the right to impose taxes and the realization of tax claims where a taxpayer violates the reporting and tax liability prescribed by the law without justifiable grounds. Therefore, the taxpayer’s intentional and negligent acts are not considered, and the land or mistake of the law does not constitute justifiable grounds (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Du5944, Apr. 12, 2002).

In light of the above legal principles, even if there is no dispute over the fact that the Plaintiff did not report the transfer income tax base within the deadline, and even if the Plaintiff did not report the transfer income tax base due to the absence of statutes or mistake, it cannot be deemed that there is a justifiable reason that the above circumstance alone does not lead to the Plaintiff’s neglect of duty. The Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.