가공경비를 가수금으로 처리하였다 하더라도 가수금은 반제를 예정하지 아니한 명목상의 채무로 볼 이유가 없음[국승]
Busan District Court-2015-Gu Partnership-22777 ( March 31, 2016)
Even if the processing expenses were disposed of as provisional receipts, there is no reason to regard the provisional receipts as a nominal obligation not scheduled to reflect the anti-annual system.
(As in the judgment of the court of first instance) The processing expenses of the non-party company were disposed of as provisional receipts, and the provisional receipts were disposed of as provisional receipts, so long as they were appropriated as provisional receipts, it shall not be deemed as non-scheduled provisional receipts, and it shall not be deemed as non-scheduled provisional receipts. It is difficult to believe that the non-party company was not out of the company due to the absence of reported changes, etc.
Article 40 of the Corporate Tax Act; Article 106 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act
2016Nu20708. Revocation of notice of change in income amount
AA Corporation
BB Director of the Tax Office
Busan District Court Decision 2015Guhap22777 Decided March 31, 2016
June 10, 2016
July 8, 2016
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. On August 1, 2014, the defendant revoked the notification of change in the amount of income of the OO,OO, andOOO as to the plaintiff.
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the decision by the plaintiff to the grounds for appeal under Paragraph (2) below, and therefore, this Court cited it as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional determination
A. The plaintiff's assertion
The Plaintiff accounted for the instant issues as the representative director’s provisional collection, but this was used as the full amount of the Plaintiff’s operating fund as a processing debt only on the pretext of the failure to set up an anti-domination. In fact, the Plaintiff’s disposal of the instant amount as the bonus of the representative director MF was unlawful in violation of the principle of substantial taxation, even though the Plaintiff did not have disclosed the said provisional payment as a resolution of the board of directors on December 10, 2013, as a result of a resolution of the board of directors, in the
According to the facts found by the judgment of the court of first instance, it is difficult to recognize that the non-party 1's debt amount corresponding to the issue amount of this case is non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 2's.
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and it is so decided as per Disposition.