법무법인의 소속변호사가 받은 쟁점수임료를 청구법인의 수입금액에 가산하여 과세한 처분은 정당함[국승]
early 2012west0502 (Law No. 18, 2012)
In addition to the income amount of the claimant corporation of the law firm, the disposition imposing the fees received by the affiliated attorney of the law firm is justifiable.
Considering the fact that an attorney-at-law belonging to a law firm is unable to provide the services of attorney-at-law for his or a third party's account, that the attorney-at-law belongs to the requesting corporation and received the fees, that the plaintiff is designated as the attorney-at-law in the case related to the fees of this case, and that the plaintiff can deal with the loss through bad debts
Paragraph 1 of Article 52 of the Attorney-at-Law Act
2012Guhap35191 Disposition of revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax
Law Firm AAAA
Head of Seocho Tax Office
February 15, 2013
March 8, 2013
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Each disposition of the Defendant imposed on the Plaintiff on June 1, 201, KRW 000 (including additional tax), KRW 000 (including additional tax), and KRW 000 (including additional tax) for the first time in 2010, and KRW 000 (including additional tax) for the business year 2010.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. LBB, an attorney affiliated with the Plaintiff, was paid a fee by ParkCC, etc. as listed below.
B. On June 1, 2011, the Defendant issued a revised and notified the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff omitted the return of KRW 000 among the import fees (hereinafter referred to as “the instant application fees”), adding the amount of the instant application fees to KRW 000 of the value-added tax for the second period of 2009 (including additional taxes), KRW 000 of the value-added tax for the first period of 2010 (including additional taxes), and KRW 000 of the corporate tax for the business year 2010 (including additional taxes) (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).
C. The Plaintiff filed an objection on August 16, 201, and received a decision of dismissal from the Defendant on September 22, 2011. The Plaintiff filed an appeal on December 14, 2011, but received a decision of dismissal from the Tax Tribunal on July 18, 2012.
[Ground of Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 7, and Eul evidence 1 to 6 (including natural disaster) and the whole purport of the pleading
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion
Since the fee of this case was deposited into the personalization of the mostBB, the plaintiff is not aware of the fact of the case or the fact of the payment of the fee, and considering that the fee of this case is the personal income of the mostBB, and the disposition of this case, which was made by adding the fee of this case to the amount of the plaintiff's income, is unlawful.
(b) Related statutes;
It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.
(c) Fact of recognition;
(1) The Plaintiff’s member and its affiliated attorney shall have the office of each person, each person, and each other, and independently perform the case accepted. In addition, the personal account was established to manage each person’s fees, and the Plaintiff’s expense and contribution were shared.
(2) The Plaintiff reported and paid the value-added tax and corporate tax by adding up the revenue amount of the individual account of its members and their attorneys-at-law.
(3) From February 1, 2006, LB was operating an individual attorney-at-law office and closed on June 29, 2007. The LB was paid from the Plaintiff KRW 000 in 2009, and KRW 000 in 2010 in 200.
(4) According to the results of the case search site on the homepage of the Supreme Court and Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office, and the plaintiff is the attorney of the case related to the fees of the case, and the most BB is incorporated into the attorney, respectively.
[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Eul's statements in sub-paragraphs 1 through 6 (including natural disasters), and the whole purport of the pleading
D. Determination
According to the above facts, and the fees of this case were paid to the highestBB or its office accounts. However, according to Article 52 (1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act, it is reasonable to see that the fees of this case can be treated as the plaintiff's sales, and considering the fact that it is reasonable to see that the plaintiff can be treated as the plaintiff's sales, and that the plaintiff should not consider the taxpayer's intentional negligence and corporate tax as well as the plaintiff's income in addition to the fees of this case since the plaintiff calculated the amount of the fees of this case by adding the fees of the case to the personal account of its member and its affiliated attorney in the form of independent debt settlement, the mostBB is paid the plaintiff as the plaintiff's affiliated attorney in 209 and 2010, and the plaintiff is designated as the plaintiff as the attorney in the case related to the fees of this case, and the Seoul High Court reports part of the fees of this case to the Seoul High Court 2009Ra2248, and the plaintiff can be treated as the plaintiff's losses.
3. Conclusion
If so, the plaintiff's claim is without merit, it is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.