National Tax Service Review Income 2011-0089 (Law No. 19, 2011)

Although the exclusion period has not expired, it does not meet the requirements for delivery of notice.

A written notice to a certified tax accountant who has no evidence to deem that the power of representation has been granted, and a written notice to the company in which he/she is employed as a director was sent by facsimile, but it cannot be deemed that the written notice was lawfully delivered, such as not receiving any receipt from the plaintiff.

Article 10 (4) of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2011Guhap37923 global income and revocation of disposition

CHAPTER A

The Director of the Pacific District Office

March 16, 2012

April 6, 2012

1. Disposition imposing global income tax of 000 won on the Plaintiff on May 27, 2011, which belongs to the year 2005.

(b) revoke the subsection (3).

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 25, 1975, the Plaintiff purchased an OOB00 large of 59.3 square meters (hereinafter “instant site”) from the KimB, Gangdong-gu Seoul, Seoul, under title trust with the headF.

B. On June 28, 2003, the FF and its fraud had sold the instant site to the GGG, and the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the FF and this H.

C. The headF and HaH demanded the Plaintiff to revoke the complaint. On December 8, 2004, the Plaintiff drafted a written agreement (hereinafter “the instant agreement”) with the FF on the condition that the Plaintiff would receive KRW 180,000,000 in return for the cancellation of the complaint, and the Plaintiff would receive KRW 000 on the same day and receive KRW 000 on the same day, and the remainder 00 on September 30, 2005. This on the same day, H transferred to the Plaintiff its claim for the return of its lease deposit, which was drafted below.

D. On May 27, 2011, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff received KRW 000 on September 30, 2005 as other income, and decided to correct the global income tax of KRW 000 on May 27, 201 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. On June 23, 2011, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for examination with the National Tax Service, but the said request was dismissed on August 19, 201.

[Ground of Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1-1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff’s payment of KRW 000 to the date of September 30, 2005, taking into account the fund’s financial situation, was deferred until September 30, 2005, and the instant agreement was prepared as a security for the claim to refund the lease deposit by H, and the payment of the agreed amount should be deemed to have been completed on December 8, 2004. Therefore, the instant disposition was unlawful. 2) In addition, the Defendant did not lawfully deliver the content of the instant disposition to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the instant disposition cannot be deemed to have become effective.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Determination on the first argument

Article 21 (1) 17 of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 7579 of July 13, 2005, hereinafter the same shall apply) provides honorariums as other income, and Article 50 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19327 of Feb. 9, 2006, hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that "the date of receipt of such other income" shall be seen as "the date of receipt of such other income," and it must be seen as "the date of actual receipt". In other words, in light of the circumstances determined by the Plaintiff at the time of the preparation of the instant agreement, even if the Plaintiff received a claim for return of the lease deposit from H, it shall not be deemed that the date of payment of KRW 00 on September 30, 200, and it shall be interpreted as guaranteeing the payment of KRW 00,000,000 for other income. Therefore, the Plaintiff's assertion that 00 won was actually paid.

2) The facts of recognition as to the second argument

(1) On May 27, 2011, the Defendant printed out the written notice of the instant disposition, and issued it to the bothJ on May 30, 2011, and received a receipt from bothJ.

(2) On May 31, 2011, the Defendant, at around 15:15, delivered the notice of the instant disposition to K K, a director of the Plaintiff, by facsimile, but did not receive any receipt from the Plaintiff that the said notice was received.

(3) On May 31, 201, at around 20:40 on May 31, 201, the Defendant: (a) confirmed that the Plaintiff’s domicile was OOOO apartment 00 000,000, and tried to deliver the instant notice of disposition to the Plaintiff; (b) provided a notice of disposition to the Plaintiff; and (c) provided a notice to the Plaintiff, even if the front letter is locked and the front letter is divided several times, the Defendant did not answer.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsured Facts, Eul evidence 2-1, and 2, part of witnesses L, and the purport of the whole pleadings

B) Determination

Article 9 of the National Tax Collection Act (amended by Act No. 10527 of April 4, 201), and Article 9 provide that when the head of a tax office or the head of a Gun intends to provide a fixed number of national taxes, taxpayers shall be provided with a notice indicating the tax base and amount of tax, and the due date and place of tax payment, and Article 83 of the Income Tax Act provides that the head of the district tax office or the head of a regional tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment shall notify the residents or their successors in writing as prescribed by the Presidential Decree if they were determined or corrected pursuant to the provisions of Article 80. This provision provides that the dispositions of this case shall be carried out in detail to ensure fairness in tax administration and that the dispositions of this case were not carried out, and that the above dispositions of this case shall be strictly interpreted to the effect that the taxpayer would be able to appeal, and that the above dispositions of this case should be carried out without any justifiable reason that the taxpayer would not have received any tax payment notice (see Supreme Court Decision 97Nu19798, Apr. 29, 1997).

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim of this case is seeking revocation of the meaning of declaring the invalidity of the disposition of this case.

The purpose of this article is included, and it is so decided as per Disposition.