법인세등부과처분취소
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
1. Case summary
A. On December 31, 2003, when the Plaintiff produced a sub-committee in the Incheon factory, and entered into an agreement on the settlement of closed tins (hereinafter “instant agreement”) with the content that collected from a settling cell to store in Incheon Factory and buried the reservoir at an amusement park (hereinafter “waste disposal construction”).
B. Upon filing a corporate tax return for the business year 2007, the Plaintiff treated the cost of the closed stone disposal work as deductible expenses.
C. On May 1, 2008, the Plaintiff established J (hereinafter “J”) by spin-off the division of chemical products manufacturing sector of the Incheon Factory on May 1, 2008, and completed the registration of subdivision on May 6, 2008. The J also spent the expenses of the closed stone disposal work as above in the business year from 2008 to 2012.
The Plaintiff, from 2010 to 2010, adopted the consolidated tax return system as a consolidated subsidiary, and declared corporate tax, treated the costs of the closed stone disposal work paid by J as deductible expenses.
E. Meanwhile, from April 20, 2009 to June 24, 2009, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office conducted an integrated investigation of corporate entrepreneurs for the business year 2004 and 2005 (hereinafter “tax investigation for the year 2009”) against the Plaintiff. The “data status” prepared by the Plaintiff refers to the submission of “the contract for construction works of the Incheon Factory Closure and Removal Work,” “a review document and a summary as to whether the expenses incurred in the disposal of stone were capital expenses,” and “documents related to the progress of the reclamation of the closed stone gathering”.
The director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office on June 25, 2009.