early 2010 Heavy3094 (Law No. 111.08)

Since it was intended to omit the comprehensive income tax by preparing double books, it constitutes fraud or other unlawful act.

Since a copy of the books submitted by a tax evasion informant is the actual books of the plaintiff's workplace, and it can be sufficiently recognized that the plaintiff intended to omit the comprehensive income tax by preparing double books, the exclusion period for imposition of ten years should apply because the plaintiff's act of preparing double books falls under "Fraud or other unlawful acts" under the Framework Act

2011Guhap4140 global income and revocation of disposition

p. Mex

Head of Namyang District Tax Office

October 9, 2012

November 20, 2012

1. On July 5, 2010, the Defendant’s imposition disposition of global income tax amounting to the Plaintiff for the year 2002, exceeding KRW 000 among the imposition disposition of global income tax for the year 2002, exceeding KRW 000 among the imposition disposition of global income tax for the year 2003, exceeding KRW 000 among the imposition disposition of global income tax for the year 2004, exceeding KRW 000 among the imposition disposition of global income tax for the year 2004, exceeding KRW 00 among the imposition disposition of global income tax for the year 205, and exceeding KRW 00 among the imposition disposition of global income tax for the year 2006.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. 3/4 of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

The Defendant’s imposition of global income tax of 000 won on July 5, 2010, global income tax of 2003, global income tax of 2003, global income tax of 2004, global income tax of 2004, global income tax of 000 won for 2005, global income tax of 000 won for 2005, and global income tax of 000 won for 206.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From March 2, 1991, the Plaintiff, who opened a business with the trade name referred to in XX, was a business entity engaged in sexual surgery as a specialist, and the amount of income accrued from 2002 to 2006 as a total of 00 won and paid annual comprehensive income tax for the year to which it belongs.

B. The Defendant conducted an integrated investigation of income tax on the Plaintiff on the basis of data submitted by the informant (former wife) from 2002 to 2006, and confirmed the Plaintiff’s omission of 000 won in the account books and necessary expenses during the business period from 2002 to 2006 and the omission in filing a return of income pursuant thereto. On July 5, 2010, the Defendant issued a notice of correction (hereinafter “instant disposition”). The Plaintiff issued a notice of correction (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3 through 7, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff did not prepare double books as alleged by the Defendant, and the books submitted by Nonparty A are nothing more than false information materials. Accordingly, the prior Defendant’s disposition on a different premise should be revoked in its entirety.

2) As long as the Plaintiff did not engage in “Fraud or other unlawful conduct” as above, the part of the global income tax for the disposition in the instant case, which belonged to the year 2002-2004, has expired the exclusion period.

3) Since the part exceeding the aggregate of 000 won out of the revenue from the above information data is not well-known, and thus, it is impossible to distinguish it, among the instant disposition, at least the part based on the above-mentioned data should be revoked.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes shall be as follows.

C. Determination

1) Whether the Plaintiff committed a fraudulent or other unlawful act

Article 26-2(1)1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 8139 of Dec. 30, 2006; hereinafter “former Framework Act on National Taxes”) provides that the exclusion period of the right to impose national taxes shall be ten years from the date on which the national taxes can be imposed if the national taxes are evaded by fraud or other unlawful acts. The term “Fraud or other unlawful acts” in this context refers to the acts which are considered to be unfair under social norms, such as acts which make it possible to evade taxes, i.e., acts which make it impossible or considerably difficult to impose taxes. It does not correspond to a mere failure to report under tax laws or a false declaration without accompanying any other acts. However, it does not correspond to a mere failure to report or underreporting, and an exchange or return of means of payment, such as false bookkeeping or checks, and an act of repeatedly using multiple borrowed accounts, in addition to cases where active concealment is discovered, it may be recognized that it is difficult to impose taxes or significantly difficult (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 3014Do14.

In light of the above legal principles, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the records in the Health Team, Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 7, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 4 (including family numbers), the following facts are as follows: (i) the copy of the account books submitted by non-party A submitted by the non-party A is a medical record from August 2002 to May 2006, including the date of treatment, patient name, treatment records, total medical expenses, payment method and amount of medical expenses (cash and credit card settlement), advance payment and receipt, and (ii) the details of remittance of the patient in the bank account (Evidence No. 2) submitted by the plaintiff and the copy of the above account book are compared with each other; (iii) the plaintiff prepared a ledger of each account each year, and the method of including credit table sales at once in December 1, 200, which is recognized as having been sufficiently combined with the plaintiff's actual account books submitted by the non-party A.

Furthermore, the exclusion period for imposition of ten years is applied since the act of preparing the above double book by the plaintiff falls under the "Fraud or other unlawful act" under Article 26-2 (1) 1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, and the plaintiff's assertion on the different premise is without merit.

(ii)the calculation of a reasonable amount of tax;

However, as the copy of the above book that the defendant used as the basis of the disposition of this case (No. 2-2-8) is not good, it is hard to distinguish the remainder except for the amount of 000 won of the income in 2002, 000 of the income in 2003, 000 of the income in 204, 2000 of the income in 2005, 000 of the income in 2005, and 000 of the income in 2006, and the statement of No. 4 in subparagraph 4 is insufficient to recognize that the income in 202-2006 exceeds the above amount, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the global income tax amount shall be determined based on the amount recognizable as above. Of the instant disposition, the amount of global income tax, i.e., the amount of global income tax accrued in 2002, 000 won reverted in 2003, 000 won reverted in 2004, 000 won reverted in 2005, 000 won reverted in 2005, and 000 won reverted in 206 shall be revoked.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.