Seoul Administrative Court-2014-Gu Partnership-51913 ( August 28, 2014)

The interim tax amount shall not be absorption or extinguished by the final return on tax base of global income tax.

The interim prepayment tax amount that has already been determined by the final return of the estimated global income tax return shall not be deemed to be extinguished by absorbing it.

2014Nu63567 Gross income and revocation of disposition

KimA

00. Head of tax office

May 20, 2015

June 17, 2015

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. Of the instant lawsuit, the part that seeks revocation of the imposition disposition of the principal tax (23,278,105 won) of the global income tax for interim prepayment for 2008 shall be dismissed.

3. Interim prepayment tax for the year 2008 owed to the Plaintiff on November 9, 2012 - 2 -

(10,006,639) The disposition of imposition shall be revoked.

4. Of the total litigation costs, 20% is borne by the Defendant, and the remainder by the Plaintiff, respectively.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The global income tax for the year 2008 owed by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on November 9, 2012

33,284,740 won (including additional taxes) shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 1, 2008, the Plaintiff calculated the annual global income conversion amount of 173,160,60,600, global income deduction of 2,000,000, global income tax base of 171,160,60,600, calculated tax base of global income, 46,766,210, and 23,383,105, and reported the said amount of 23,383,105 as an estimate amount of interim prepayment, but did not pay it.

B. On May 30, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a final return on the tax base of global income tax for the year 2008 with the Defendant deducted KRW 23,277,605 from the tax amount for interim prepayment (this is based on the Defendant’s guidance, and the difference between the reported amount and the tax amount is directed by the Defendant at a higher rate than KRW 600,000 than the above reported amount). The Defendant issued a revised interim tax for global income tax for the year 2008 on November 9, 2012 on the ground that the Plaintiff’s unpaid correction of the tax amount for interim prepayment for global income tax for the year 2008 (the difference between the interim prepayment amount and the above KRW 23,277,605) (the difference between the interim prepayment amount and the above KRW 23,277,605) and the additional tax for interim prepayment shall be calculated as KRW 10,006,639, and the tax amount shall be included in the interim tax for interim prepayment 3304,374(34).

The notice was given (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case").

D. On November 23, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal on April 18, 2013, but received a decision of dismissal on November 6, 2013. The Plaintiff did not have any dispute with the ground for recognition, each of the entries in Gap 1 through 6, and Eul 1 through 5 (including the serial number), and the purport of the entire pleadings and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The interim prepayment tax amount of global income tax is an prepayment tax, and thus, becomes extinct after the final and conclusive tax base and tax amount of global income tax in the pertinent taxable period becomes final and conclusive. The imposition disposition of interim income tax between the global income tax accrued in 208 and the global income tax accrued in November 9, 2012, after the Plaintiff filed the final and conclusive tax base return on global income tax for the pertinent

B. If a resident files a return of the estimated amount for interim prepayment by November 30, 201, it shall be deemed that there has been no determination of the tax payment notice of the estimated amount for interim prepayment as notified to the resident by the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the place for tax payment until November 15, 2008. Since the Plaintiff filed a return of the estimated amount for interim prepayment of the global income tax for which November 30, 2008 belongs on December 4, 2008, the Plaintiff’s return of the estimated amount for interim prepayment is invalid, and the Defendant’s disposition based on the estimated amount for interim prepayment reported by the Plaintiff is illegal as double imposition or excess imposition, as long as the reported tax amount becomes effective, even if the interim amount for interim prepayment as notified by the Defendant on November 15, 2008 has no effect.

C. The instant disposition is unlawful on the ground that there is no proof by the Defendant on the basis of the calculation basis of global income (86,580,300 won) that served as the basis of the instant disposition.

D. Of the instant disposition, the tax base and tax assessment basis, etc. - 4-

Since it has not been properly stated, it is illegal.

3. Relevant statutes;

Attached Form 3 is as listed in the "relevant Acts and subordinate statutes".

4. The judgment of this Court

(a) The provisions of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9897, Dec. 31, 2009; hereinafter the same shall apply) concerning interim prepayment of the principal tax of the instant disposition shall be deemed to be the tax amount. The chief of the tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment shall determine the amount equivalent to 1/2 of the income tax paid or to be paid on the global income of the previous year (hereinafter referred to as the "amount of interim prepayment base") for the resident with global income as the interim prepayment period from January 1 to June 30 as the interim prepayment period, and collect the same amount as the tax amount to be paid or to be paid not later than November 30. In this case, the chief of the tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment shall issue a tax notice between the residents liable to pay the interim prepayment amount within the same period from November 1 to 15 (Article 65(1)), and the amount of tax on the global income of the resident with global income as of the expiration of the interim prepayment period from October 16 to 10.

- 5- In addition, Article 21(2)3 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 9911, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter the same) provides for the separate time when the liability to pay income tax is established for interim prepayment. Article 22 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 10-2 subparag. 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22038, Feb. 18, 2010; hereinafter the same) provides for the time when the obligation to pay income tax becomes final and conclusive as the tax base and tax amount are reported to the government, and does not exclude the filing of the interim prepayment within the scope of return, and the determination of the liability to pay tax refers to the situation where the content of the abstractly established obligation to pay tax can come to the collection procedure. In light of the aforementioned provisions, it can be deemed that the liability to pay tax for interim prepayment reported at the time of filing the interim prepayment tax amount (see Supreme Court Decision 20120Du38, Apr. 28, 2018, 2018).

[Reference]

As such, between November 1 and November 30, a resident with global income

If a report on the estimated amount of prepayment is filed, the tax liability shall be determined pursuant to the report, and such prior

the tax office’s determination of interim prepayment shall be deemed not to have existed. This determination shall be based on the foregoing findings.

On December 1, 2008, the Plaintiff reported the estimated amount of interim prepayment to the Defendant as interim prepayment tax, and the Plaintiff thereafter filed a new return.

Since it is Sundays on November 30, 2008, which is the deadline, the plaintiff's report is lawfully filed within the deadline.

J. Accordingly, the interim tax amount for global income tax for the plaintiff in 2008 shall be filed in accordance with the above return.

was confirmed by the Defendant, but the amount of global income deduction shall be corrected among the reports made by the Defendant.

As the amount of the principal tax of the instant disposition is reduced due to the reduction, the amount of the principal tax of the instant disposition causes reduction and correction.

may be seen as such.

On the other hand, the corrective disposition is the initial report or disposition of imposition and the separate independent taxation.

- - Other

In addition, the substance of the original return or disposition is modified and the part of the tax amount is taken by it.

as a disposition that has a favorable effect to the taxpayer, the decision of correction has yet to be revoked.

In the event that the remaining part is not illegal, the subject of an appeal litigation shall be the subject of the initial report.

(b) The remaining part of the disposition that is not revoked by the decision of correction, and the decision of correction of reduction shall be made.

The subject matter of an appeal is not a subject matter of an appeal (Supreme Court Decision 2012Du7370 Decided March 13, 2014, etc.)

§ 6).

Therefore, the part of the lawsuit seeking cancellation of principal tax among the disposition of this case is unlawful.

Furthermore, the effect of confirmation by the estimated amount return shall be lost by the final return.

the interim tax is paid upon filing a final return. The interim tax is paid upon filing a final return.

Subject to deduction on the assumption that prepayment is paid, the tax base and tax amount pursuant to the final return shall be the tax amount to be deducted.

The interim prepayment tax return, including errors in the calculation of the estimate interim prepayment amount, shall be filed separately from the grounds therefor.

There may be a unique defect, and payment after the due date for interim tax payment shall not be made.

Since the tax is imposed on good faith, a taxpayer shall file a tax return on interim prepayment even after the final tax return.

There is a profit to dispute the reasons for defects, and Articles 45(1) and 45-2(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes

A person eligible to file a revised return or request for correction shall file a tax base return by the statutory due date of return.

to the extent of such declaration, the interim prepayment declaration shall not be included in the interim prepayment declaration.

the filing of a revised return and a request for correction may also be deemed to be possible, and the filing of interim tax

Article 65 (9) of the former Income Tax Act on the grounds that it cannot be corrected after the final return.

In light of the fact that restrictions on the correction period are not separately provided, the assessment of global income tax

The interim tax amount already determined by the return of the estimated amount for interim prepayment by the standard final return shall be absorption;

shall not be deemed to have been extinguished.

- - Other

In addition, the plaintiff reduces the interim tax amount by the defendant's guidance while filing the final tax return.

Although the return was filed, it is so long as the liability for tax payment is determined as the return of the estimated amount for interim prepayment.

The contents of the tax liability confirmed by a final tax return other than a request for correction can be arbitrarily reversed.

The effect of the return of the estimated amount for interim prepayment upon the final return of the global income tax is not the same.

Even if the principal tax can be reversed, in this case, the amount of the principal tax in the disposition of this case shall be increased and corrected.

It cannot be regarded as illegal double imposition or excess imposition, and the plaintiff's new estimate estimate amount

there is no evidence to prove that the global income amount at the time was wrong;

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the principal portion of the instant disposition is unlawful is without merit.

B. Additional tax in the disposition of this case

Additional tax shall be determined by tax laws in order to facilitate the exercise of the right to impose taxes and the realization of tax claims.

a kind of administrative administrative system that imposes a duty upon a taxpayer who violates the duty without good cause.

In that sense, the principle of due process should be applied more strongly. Furthermore, additional tax is the principal tax.

Inasmuch as not only the kinds of each item of taxation are very diverse, but also the criteria and the basis for imposition are removed;

If a tax payment notice does not state the basis of calculation of additional tax, a taxpayer shall be without taxpayer.

It is common that it is not easy to grasp what reason the penalty is imposed.

In light of the same point, the former National Tax Collection Act (Law No. 11605, Jan. 1, 2013) concerning the duty payment notice

The purport of Article 9(1) of the Act is to achieve the same in the notice of tax payment of penalty tax.

In the meantime, the imposition of principal tax and the imposition of additional tax are separate taxation.

As such, if multiple kinds of additional taxes are imposed on the same item of taxation, the imposition of each additional tax is also imposed.

It should be deemed that each tax is separate taxation by type. Accordingly, a tax notice shall be issued only.

Where both principal tax and additional tax are to be imposed, the principal tax and additional tax amount in each tax notice;

- 8-

The basis for calculation should be stated separately, and a number of kinds of additional taxes should be imposed together.

(2) If the penalty tax is assessed, the penalty tax amount and the basis for calculation shall be described separately.

As a result, a taxpayer is able to know the content of each taxation disposition by itself.

This principle is a natural principle (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2010Du12347, Oct. 18, 2012).

§ 6).

According to Gap's evidence No. 1, the amount of additional tax in the tax notice on the disposition of this case

The fact that only the basis for calculation, such as the type and rate of the additional tax, is not specified;

As such, the duty payment notice of the portion of the disposition of this case is required by the relevant laws and regulations.

There is a defect, such as omission of the description sought, and otherwise the defect has been supplemented or cured.

There is no circumstance to deem that there is no circumstance.

Therefore, the penalty part among the instant disposition is unlawful.

5. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the part of the lawsuit seeking revocation of the principal tax among the dispositions in this case is dismissed.

In addition, the penalty part among the disposition of this case shall be revoked.