2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant

A. The majority of taxi transportation business entities provide taxi drivers with fuel of 25 to 30-liters a day, and receive fixed taxi commissions from taxi drivers, and they are operating taxi transportation business in such a way as to directly bear fuel expenses to be used in excess. The Plaintiff provided full fuel for a day to taxi drivers in accordance with the wage agreement entered into with the labor union from around 1995, and received an amount equivalent to 5-liter fuel from taxi drivers in addition to fixed taxi commissions as additional taxi commissions. The Plaintiff received an amount equivalent to 5-liter fuel from taxi drivers in addition to fixed taxi commissions. The Plaintiff included the purchase amount of all fuels supplied to taxi drivers during the second period from the second period of 2004 to the first period of 2009, and filed a tax and value-added tax return after deducting the input tax amount.

B. On January 4, 2010, the Defendant: (a) against the Plaintiff on January 4, 2010, “the fixed taxi commission and additional taxi commission during the total transport are the Plaintiff’s revenue; and (b) since the remainder is the import of taxi drivers, the fuel purchase cost corresponding to the import of taxi drivers (hereinafter “excess fuel cost”) is spent for the import of taxi drivers; (c) thus, the excess fuel cost is deemed deductible expenses; and (d) imposed corporate tax and value-added tax as indicated in the order by non-deduction of the said input tax amount (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On February 8, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an appeal seeking the revocation of the instant disposition with the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed by the Tax Tribunal on November 4, 201.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 to 5, Evidence Nos. 1 to 21 (including paper numbers), Evidence No. 1 to 21, Evidence No. A’s testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The excess fuel cost is paid in accordance with the wage agreement entered into with the labor union, and the expenses paid for the plaintiff's taxi transportation business, so it is necessary to deduct the deductible industry and input tax amount.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

(1) Article 19(2) of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10423, Dec. 30, 2010) provides that losses shall be losses or expenses generated or spent in connection with the business of the relevant corporation which are generally accepted as normal or directly related to profit. Here, the term “ordinary expenses” refers to expenses recognized as having been disbursed under the same situation by other corporations operating the same kind of business as the taxpayer. Whether such expenses constitute expenses shall be determined objectively by comprehensively taking into account the details, purpose, form, amount, effect, etc. of the disbursement, barring special circumstances, the expenses that were disbursed in violation of social order are excluded (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Du12422, Nov. 12, 2009). In addition, the current method of taxation provides that, in principle, the input tax amount shall be calculated by adding the value-added value and purchase value-added value to the input tax amount imposed only on the entrepreneur’s self-production and the basic structure of input tax amount to be purchased from the output tax amount.

(2) The instant taxi commission is public health; ① the details and purpose of expenditure of excess fuel commission; the Plaintiff entered into an wage agreement with the labor union from around 1995; the Plaintiff obtained profits equivalent to fixed taxi commission less regular taxi commission and additional taxi commission; ② the taxi drivers are provided with unlimited fuel per day; on the other hand, the taxi drivers may bear the burden of paying additional taxi commission; (i) the amount of excess taxi commission is more or less than that of other taxi drivers belonging to the relevant taxi business entity; (ii) the amount of excess taxi commission calculated by deducting the amount of excess taxi commission from the total amount of 20-year fuel commission (i.e., the amount of excess taxi commission) by deducting the amount of excess taxi commission from the total amount of excess taxi commission to the total amount of 10-year fuel commission (i.e., the amount of excess taxi commission). (ii) the amount of excess taxi drivers calculated by the Defendant’s 20-year fuel commission by deducting the amount of excess taxi commission from the total amount of excess taxi commission (i.e., the amount of excess taxi commission) from total 10-year fuel commission).

(3) Therefore, the instant disposition based on the premise that the excess fuel cost does not constitute a deductible expense or an input tax amount is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition.