(영문) 인천지방법원 2013. 10. 10. 선고 2013구합1236 판결제공한 용역은 전문적 지식이나 특별한 기능을 활용하여 용역을 제공한 것으로 보이므로 80%필요경비가 인정됨[국패]
early 2012 Heavy0869 ( December 27, 2012)
Since services provided are deemed to have been provided by utilizing professional knowledge or special functions, 80% of necessary expenses are recognized.
In full view of the fact that companies have engaged in business of investment and acquisition, the fact that they are delegated with business of transferring assets and liabilities without employing separate consulting companies or experts, and the fact that they cannot be seen as simple business of arranging property rights without professional knowledge in light of the scale of business of transferring assets and liabilities, etc., the provision of services is deemed to constitute other income for which necessary expenses are recognized
Article 4 of the Income Tax Act
2013Guhap1236 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing global income tax, etc.
KimA
The director of the North Incheon National Tax Office
August 29, 2013
October 10, 2013
1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition on the Plaintiff on July 11, 201, as global income tax for the year 2009, is revoked.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
Cheong-gu Office
The same shall apply to the order.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. At the time of the tax year of global income tax in 2009, the Plaintiff was a wage and salary income earner who was working for BB venture investment, and sold its assets to EE limited company (hereinafter referred to as "E"), a subsidiary of D Food Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "DD Food") (hereinafter referred to as "E"). Deal (hereinafter referred to as "P&A; hereinafter the same shall apply) entered into a service agreement with CC Food, Jun. 24, 2009; (i) concluded a service agreement with DaD Food; (ii) concluded a service agreement (hereinafter referred to as "P&A; and (iii) acquired the status of the above service agreement on D Food as 15, 2009; and (iv) concluded a service agreement with AO Food, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "each service agreement"); (iv) and (iv) received from OE Food, 200, 20000, or 300,000 won (hereinafter referred to as 7, 60.
C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a comprehensive income tax return for the year 2009 on the premise that the instant service cost is 80% of the other income, on the premise that the person with specialized knowledge or special ability under Article 21 (1) 19 (c) of the former Income Tax Act, which deducts 80% of the other income from the necessary expenses, is 'the services provided by using such knowledge or skills for remuneration or other consideration', and that the amount of OOO won equivalent to 80% is deducted from the necessary expenses and applied for the refund of OOO won. On June 22, 2010, the Defendant received the above amount from the Defendant on March 23, 2011, and (d) thereafter, the Defendant rejected the instant service cost from the Plaintiff on March 23, 201, on the premise that it constitutes 'the intermediary fee for property rights under Article 21 (1) 16 (c) of the former Income Tax Act, which is not recognized as 80% of the necessary expenses.
[Reasons for Recognition] In the absence of dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 7 in the evidence No. 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. Both claims
1) The plaintiff's assertion
A) The Plaintiff, as an expert in the business of corporate mergers, provided the instant P&A; and as a professional and comprehensive advisory service throughout the entire transaction, including the discovery of the acquiring company at the time of sexual history, the formulation of acquisition strategies, and the provision of various information, and the preparation of a written contract. As such, the instant service cost constitutes the price for services provided by experts, etc. under Article 21(1)19(c) of the former Income Tax Act by utilizing knowledge or skills or other services provided without an employment relationship, among other income.
B) The Defendant rendered a refund on the Plaintiff’s global income tax return for 2009, premised on the premise that the instant service cost falls under Article 21(1)19 of the former Income Tax Act, and thus, the instant disposition is also contrary to the principle of good faith.
2) The defendant's assertion
In light of the lack of objective data to prove that the Plaintiff provided services by utilizing professional knowledge in the course of performing the instant service, the Plaintiff’s income tax was withheld by deeming the firstCC Food and EE as a commission or honorarium for mediating property rights or a honorarium for the instant service, and the Plaintiff was working in another company at the time. In light of the fact that the instant service cost should be deemed as a commission or honorarium for mediating property rights under Article 21(1)16 or 17 of the former Income Tax Act among other income.
B. Relevant statutes
It is as shown in the attached Form.
C. Determination
Considering the overall purport of arguments as to Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 13, 21, and 22, the following facts are revealed: (a) the plaintiff worked in the Investment Team of Venture Investment from around 2000 to engage in business related to corporate investment and acquisition for about 10 years; and (b) at the time of each service contract of this case, the plaintiff worked in the Investment Team of Venture Investment; (c) at the time of each service contract of this case, the scope of services to be provided to the plaintiff in the Investment Team of BB Venture Investment Co., Ltd. is P&A; (d) the extent of services to be provided to the plaintiff in each service contract of this case is determined by the plaintiff; (b) the identification and introduction of the target company as well as the adjustment of the acquisition price; and (c) the formulation of strategies and information on the overall acquisition price; and (d) the plaintiff, while providing various opinions in the process of P&A; and (d)CC food and D food were not provided with advice and consultation; and (d) the plaintiff entered into a separate business consultation or consultation with the company related company.
In addition to the above facts, the following facts are as follows: (a)CC food is a company with p&A sales in 2007, the amount of assets of which is equivalent to the amount of OOO won, and D food is a so-called large enterprise; (b) the amount of assets transfer price is equivalent to the amount of the P&A of this case; and (c) each service contract of this case is not a simple arrangement of property rights that can be performed without career and professional knowledge related to corporate mergers and acquisitions; (b) although the Plaintiff did not submit the production documents such as the instant P&A of this case in addition to the relevant materials such as the instant service contract and the CC food of this case, the acquisition agreement of assets between the Plaintiff and D food of this case, OEM and e-mail, file withdrawal photographs, management consulting certificate, and the fixed assets management ledger ofCC food; (d) in light of the above facts, there is no ground to view that the Plaintiff’s provision of the above services must produce the official documents, such as the report, etc., as well as other income from the Plaintiff’s provision of the above services.
Therefore, without examining the remaining arguments of the Plaintiff, the instant disposition should be revoked in an unlawful manner.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.