조세심판원 조세심판 | 2000-12-30 | 국심2000중0361 | 법인
National High Court Decision 2000Du0361 ( December 31, 2000)
It is proved that the portion of the tax invoice received from the data is one of the transaction parts actually purchased from a person who is not a business operator, so the bonus disposition is legitimate.
Article 9 of the Corporate Tax Act (Income for Each Business Year)
National High Court 2001west082
I dismiss the appeal.
On June 18, 1999, the disposition agency received from the head of Mapo Tax Office in the first half of 1997 the amount of tax invoice for input tax from the representative (ju)O industry, and notified that the amount of 151,125,500 won (hereinafter referred to as the "market price") is a processing transaction for which no real transaction is conducted, and notified that the amount of the issue is included in deductible expenses, and notified the requesting corporation of the corporate tax amount of 47,50,110 won for the business year 197, and disposed of the amount calculated by adding the value added tax as a bonus for the representative.
On August 14, 1999, the applicant filed a request for trial on January 31, 200.
2. Opinion of the requesting corporation and the disposition agency;
A. The claimant corporation's assertion
Although a joint market is purchased from non-claimO and a tax invoice issued by non-claim (State)O industry is issued, material price and value-added tax are actually paid to OO in fact, it is improper to impose corporate tax by non-deductible tax.
(b) Opinions of disposition agencies;
Since the key amount of the issue is that the claimant purchased raw materials and paid in the price is not verified by objective evidence, such as related books and details of financial transactions, the initial disposition that the claimant imposed by deeming the key amount as a processing purchase is justifiable.
3. Hearing and determination
A. Key issue
It is true whether the applicant corporation can pay the issue amount as raw material purchase price and recognize it as loss.
(b) Related statutes;
(1) Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5418 of Dec. 13, 1997)
Article 9.(1) Income of a domestic corporation for each business year shall be the amount obtained by deducting the total amount of deductible expenses which are or will be attributed to the business year from the total amount of gross income which belongs or will be attributed to the business year.
(3) The term "deductible expenses" in paragraph (1) means the amount of losses incurred by transactions which reduce the net assets of a corporation, except as otherwise provided for in this Act, such as refund of capital or shares, appropriation of surplus funds, and transactions
(4) Not more than omission
(2) Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15564 of Dec. 31, 1997)
Article 12 (Definition of Profits and Losses) (1) omitted
(2) "Loss expenses" in Article 9 (3) of the Act means the expenses prescribed in the following subparagraphs, except as otherwise provided for in the Act and this Decree (amended by Presidential Decree No. 813, Dec. 31, 81):
2. Purchase price of the raw materials for the commodities or products sold and incidental expenses thereto;
3. Not more than the omission;
C. Facts and determination
The claim corporation asserts that the disposition office should recognize the amount as loss because the amount of the issue calculated as cost by receiving a tax invoice from the data merchant outside of the claim company is regarded as the processing purchase and thus, the claim corporation should recognize it as the loss because the amount of the issue is based on the actual transaction.
(1) The head of Mapo Tax Office confirmed the non-contentious industry as material and accused the company of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act to the Seoul District Prosecutors' Office, and notified the company of the purchase tax invoice 151,125,000 (the dispute amount) received from the company of the claim to the agency as a processing transaction without real transaction during the first period of January 1997. Accordingly, the disposition agency imposed corporate tax by non-inclusion of the issue amount and imposed corporate tax by adding value added tax to the representative's bonus for the representative.
(2) The claimant corporation argues that it purchased 7,000 copies of 0,000 copies of 7,000 copies of the issue amount and mainly paid cash, and that the tax invoice corresponding thereto was issued by the non-claiming industry, and that it was paid for the purchase of Gohap, which is the raw materials, and that it was paid for the purchase. The non-claiming non-claiming OO's statement of transaction, transaction statement, receipt, and payment was presented.
(3) The confirmation of the fact of transaction prepared by the OOO on May 28, 1999 that the other requesting corporation sold 7,000 Gohap from February 1997 to July 1997 to the requesting corporation. The price of the goods is KRW 165,00,000 in cash over seven occasions from April 20, 1997 to September 6, 1997 and the tax invoice received KRW 9,735,630 in cash and issued KRW 16,237,520 in cash over three times, but the tax invoice was issued by the OO industry. However, the fact that the requesting corporation paid the amount to the OO was not confirmed by the account books and evidence, and it is difficult to recognize the content of the transaction of the OO as the fact that there is no business income reported.
(4) In addition, the claimant corporation also presents the transaction details by item and the payment details by the date of purchase of the joint purchase from the non-claim foreignOO, but it is difficult to recognize that the issue amount is due to actual transaction because the amount paid by the claimant corporation as the material price is inconsistent with the transaction details and the entry details by the joint purchase ledger and the joint purchase ledger, and because it does not coincide with the date and amount on the deposit sheet and the statement of transactions.
(5) As shown in the above facts, it is deemed that there was no error in the initial disposition of the disposition agency which determined the tax base and tax amount by regarding the issue amount as the processing purchase as non-deductible price, since it was confirmed as material and it was confirmed by evidence that the applicant corporation actually purchased raw materials equivalent to the claim amount.
This case shall be decided as ordered under Article 81 and Article 65 (1) 2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, because the petition for the trial is groundless as a result of the review.