(a) Timing of evasion of corporate tax and business tax offenses;

(b) Whether the corporate tax evasion offense was committed under the circumstances in which only the internal provisional decision on corporate tax was made; and

(c) In the case of attempted crimes of evasion of corporate tax or business tax, the summary of confirmation of the amount of evaded tax;

A. With respect to the corporate tax and business tax imposed and collected by the taxpayer’s declaration, if the taxpayer files a return of the tax base within the time limit for filing the return, the amount of the income tax and the amount of the transaction shall be the amount of the evasion offense at the time when the payment deadline expires after the government makes a decision or investigation on the tax base

B. The provisional decision on corporate tax is not a legal basis, and it is merely an internal accounting in special cases, such as when a report on asset revaluation is filed, and it cannot be deemed a decision of the government that establishes tax obligations of legal justice. Unlike the decision of the government, unless the government makes a decision on the tax base return of corporate tax, the act of tax evasion due to underreporting the tax base of the defendant company is an attempted offense, and the decision of correction was made by the on-site investigation determination method on the overcoming part due to the tax adjustment of the government, which eventually result in an attempted offense at the time of the time of the failure to commit the tax evasion, and thus, it cannot be punished as a tax offense.

C. In the case of a tax evasion concerning corporate tax, business tax, etc. which only punishs the number of tax revenues, there is no error of incomplete trial on the ground that it did not clarify the amount of evaded tax on the premise of the number of tax evasions of the corporate tax of this case and business tax of this case.

Punishment of Tax Evaders Act Article 9-3

Defendant 1 and one other

Prosecutor

Attorney Park Su-soo

Seoul High Court Decision 80No2224 delivered on July 9, 1982

All appeals are dismissed.

The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the provisions of subparagraph 1 of Article 9-3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, in case of taxes imposed and collected by a taxpayer's return, the act of tax evasion provided for in Article 9-3 of the same Act provides that when the taxpayer files a tax base return within the statutory reporting period, the tax base return shall be determined or examined by the Government, and the payment period shall expire. In addition, in full view of the provisions of Articles 32 and 33 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3200, Dec. 28, 1979) and Article 92 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 9699, Dec. 31, 1979), the corporate tax base and tax amount of a domestic corporation shall be determined or examined by the head of the competent tax office pursuant to the provisions of Articles 26 through 28 of the above Corporate Tax Act and the provisions of Article 33 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act concerning the tax base of the domestic corporation shall be interpreted and determined by the tax base of the domestic corporation.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, Defendant 1, who was the representative director of the company that did not report the tax base of the company's 1973 and the amount of corporate tax and business tax for each business year of 1974, cannot be viewed as having been voluntarily paid the tax base within the prescribed period. The government, on September 10, 1975, did not make any such a decision, issued the tax base return for the above two business years and did not inform Defendant 2 of the tax base return to the company for the purpose of calculating the amount of corporate tax evasion. The court below's determination of the above tax evasion cannot be seen as having been made within the scope of 7 years after the date of the above tax evasion. The court below's determination of the tax evasion based on the revised tax base return for the company's 197 years and the revised tax base return for the company's 197 years and did not contain any error in the law as stated above. The court below's determination of the tax evasion return of the company's 197 years and the tax evasion report.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Jung-soo (Presiding Justice) and Lee Jong-young's Lee Jong-young