수입금액 누락에 상당하는 부외 일용근로자 급여를 필요경비 인정할수 있는지 여부[국승]
Whether the daily allowances equivalent to the omission of income amount are recognized as necessary expenses;
It is insufficient to recognize that benefits paid to daily employed workers are separate expenses not already included in the total necessary expenses corresponding to the total amount of income, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Article 27 (Calculation of Necessary Expenses)
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The Defendant’s disposition of correction and imposition of global income tax of KRW 109,132,270 on December 07, 2005 against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.
1. Details of the imposition;
The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or are recognized in full view of the statements in Gap 2, 3, and Eul 1.
A. The Plaintiff operated a salt manufacturing business with a trade name called “○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○,” and filed and paid a return on the gross income amounting to KRW 677,904,984 (the gross income amount to be paid KRW 2,530,855) with respect to the global income tax reverted to the year 2003 on May 31, 2004.
B. In making the above return, the Defendant confirmed the omission of the income amount of 243,163,589 won for the year 2003. On December 07, 2005, the Defendant issued the instant disposition that corrected the increased tax amount of 109,132,371 won for global income tax for the year 2003, adding the income amount of 2003 to the Plaintiff’s income amount of 109,132,371 (i.e., the final tax amount of 83,333,315 won + additional tax of 28,329,91 won - already paid tax amount of 2,530,855
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion
The plaintiff, while operating ○○○○, spent KRW 619,685,00 as an employee's salary during the taxable period of 2003, and thus, the defendant should have recognized the above salary as a necessary expense when rendering the disposition of this case, but the defendant did not recognize it as a necessary expense and claimed that the disposition of this case was unlawful.
B. Determination
In making a tax disposition based on the on-site investigation with regard to the omitted income amount, in a case where the tax authorities discovered the income amount omitted from the original return of the taxpayer, the taxpayer shall assert and prove that there are deductible expenses, such as necessary expenses corresponding to the omitted portion. With regard to this case, it is insufficient to recognize that the above amount which the Plaintiff claims to be additionally included in the necessary expenses is a separate expense not already included in the total amount of income, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit (the Plaintiff’s assertion that the income amount should be estimated in calculating the Plaintiff’s income tax, but it is insufficient to accept detailed assertion or proof as to the requirements).
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case based on the premise that the disposition of this case is unlawful is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.