论文部分内容阅读
案件简介:2002年4月,某地税基层分局根据群众举报对辖区内从事天麻菌种生产销售的杨某核定征收个人所得税。据调查,杨某自1995年开始天麻菌种生产、销售,1998年底开始扩大经营规模,但一直没有依法办理税务登记,也未主动向地税机关申报缴纳个人所得税。主管分局根据调查掌握的情况,核定杨某1999年元月至2001年底应缴个人所得税8250元,并送达了《应纳税款核定书》。杨某未按规定期限缴纳,收到税务机关《限期纳税通知书》后仍拒不缴纳。地税机关依法对其处以拒缴税款一倍的罚款。当事人不服,遂向法院提起行政诉讼。法院公开审理了此案,并于2002年5月31日作出一审判决:维持税务机关的征税行为,但以“三年一次征收,不缴就罚款,显失公正”为由撤销了税务机关的处罚决定。税务机关不服一审判决,请求法院再审。法院经审查认为符合再审条件,遂责成审判监督庭另行组成合议庭进行再审。2002年10月28日,法院作出再审判决,依法维持税务机关的征税和行政处罚决定。原告在法定期间未提出上诉。
Case Description: In April 2002, a local tax bureau at the grassroots level reported personal income tax to Yang Yang, who is engaged in production and sales of gastrodia species in the area, according to the masses' report. According to the survey, since 1995, Yangmou genus species production and sales, by the end of 1998 began to expand the scale of operation, but has not been tax registration in accordance with the law, did not take the initiative to the local tax authorities to declare and pay personal income tax. According to the investigation, the competent branch approved Yang's personal income tax of 8,250 yuan from January 1999 to the end of 2001, and served a “Verification of Taxable Payments”. Yang did not pay the prescribed deadline, the tax authorities received “deadline for tax payment notice” still refused to pay. Local tax authorities impose a fine of twice the tax refusal on them. The parties refuse to accept, then filed an administrative lawsuit to the court. The court heard the case openly and made a verdict of first instance on May 31, 2002: the tax authorities' behavior of taxation was maintained. However, the tax authorities were revoked on the grounds that “one time collection in three years, no fines and no fairness” Punishment decision. The tax authorities refused to accept the judgment of the first instance and asked the court to retrial. After the court considered that the conditions for retrial were met, the court of trial adjudicated to form a collegial panel to conduct a retrial. October 28, 2002, the court made a retrial verdict, according to the tax authorities to maintain the tax and administrative penalties decision. The plaintiff did not appeal during the statutory period.