Effect of final return on tax base under the Income Tax Act

The Korean Income Tax Act adopts the so-called tax return and payment system under which taxes to be paid by taxpayers are determined, such as the current Corporate Tax Act and the Value-Added Tax Act, and adopts the so-called tax base and tax amount system to determine the government. Therefore, the final tax return and other tax return under the Income Tax Act are merely providing one reference material for the decision of taxation by the tax administrative agency

Article 100 of the Income Tax Act, Article 147 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act

Plaintiff

Head of the tax office;

1. The defendant's imposition of each disposition on the plaintiff as of October 11, 1979 is revoked in its entirety.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the imposition disposition; and

(1) On October 11, 1979, the Defendant issued a disposition of imposition of global income tax and defense tax for the Plaintiff as indicated in [Attachment 1] 1 to 6, 2-1 to 7-2, 3-4 and 9-1 to the Plaintiff’s total amount of income for 7 years from the initial tax base of 97, and the total amount of income for 1 to 9-7, 3-1 to 9-7, 7-1 to 9-7, 9-7, 9-7, 9-7, 9-7, 9-7, 9-7, 9-7, 9-7, 9-7, 6-1 to the Plaintiff’s total amount of income for 7 years from the initial tax base of 9-7, 9-7, 9-1 to the Plaintiff’s total amount of income for 9-7, 9-7, 9-7, 9-1 to the Plaintiff’s dividend income for the above non-party company.

2. Assertion and determination

As seen earlier, the Defendant voluntarily reported income to the Defendant on the basis of the foregoing provision, and later, did not pay the source tax for dividend income to the Plaintiff itself. As such, the Defendant, who is a source taxpayer, is obligated to pay the source tax amount. As such, the instant tax disposition is lawful. The Plaintiff’s first ground for calculating the tax amount under the National Tax Collection Act and the Income Tax Act is erroneous in its calculation. Secondly, the Plaintiff’s return of various income from each of the above non-party companies for the period of 1972 to 197 should be based on the Defendant’s coercion, and thus, it is difficult to find that the pertinent tax disposition should be revoked by clearly stating the grounds for calculating the tax base and the pertinent tax base based on the revised provision, and thus, it is unreasonable to deem that the instant tax disposition should be revoked by stating that the Plaintiff’s tax base and the pertinent tax base should be excluded from the aforementioned revised provision, and thus, it should be so decided that the Plaintiff’s tax base and the pertinent tax base should be excluded from the above revised provision.

Examining the second assertion of the plaintiff as to Gap's reasons for imposition of national taxes: The liability for entering Gap's tax base into Gap evidence or Eul evidence is the administrative agency claiming these facts. The defendant in this case did not submit the above documents as evidence, but according to the purport of the oral argument, the above imposition disposition and subsequent imposition were made on the above day, and thus, the above report is not a final return of tax base as provided in Article 10 of the Income Tax Act and Article 147 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (the above final return is stipulated to be filed by not later than May 30 of the following year) and Gap evidence No. 1 or No. 2 (the above evidence No. 1 or No. 1 or No. 5 of the above evidence No. 3). The defendant's report No. 9 of the above facts and evidence No. 1 or No. 4 of the Income Tax Act (the above evidence No. 1 or No. 5 of the above evidence No. 9) are different from the above facts and evidence No. 1 of the final return No. 96 of taxation and thus it cannot be viewed that the above tax base return and tax return No. 9.

(1) The fact that from February 24, 1977, an investigation into the case of denial of the detailed textbook for each of the above non-party companies began with the Public Security Headquarters from around February 24, 1977, and the executive officers of each of the above non-party companies are bound by the National Tax Service upon the above notification of the Public Security Headquarters, and the tax accountant's audit was conducted at the National Tax Service for each of the above non-party companies, and as a result, the above non-party companies recognized that the total amount of the above amount was KRW 8,711,942,531 among the sales revenue of each year from 1972 to February 197 and imposed taxes, such as business tax and corporate tax, on the non-party companies.

(2) On the other hand, the National Tax Service stated that the above 4 non-party company's bonus and interest income from the above 1 company were paid to its shareholders each year under the name of the above 6 shareholders, and the above 1 company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-indicted 1's non-party company's non-indicted 6 corporation's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 6 corporation's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 6 corporation's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 6 corporation's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 6 corporation's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 6 corporation's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 6 corporation's non-indicted 1's non-party company's non-indicted 6 corporation's non-indicted company's non-indicted company's non-party company's non-indicted company's non-indicted 1's non-party company's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 3 company's non-6 company'.

Thus, the disposition of this case, which is based on the premise that the defendant had an actual income, which is the premise of the disposition of this case, cannot be viewed as unlawful in this point without further examining the remaining points.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case shall be revoked in some way, and the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted as reasonable, and the costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the losing party and shall be decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-Un (Presiding Judge) Guil-do