[종합소득세부과처분취소][미간행]
Where the burden of proving that the cost corresponding to the tax invoice for a part of the expenses reported by the taxpayer has been actually disbursed is converted to the taxpayer.
Article 26 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [Liability for Certification], Article 27 of the Income Tax Act
[Plaintiff, Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han-sung, Attorneys Lee Jae-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)
Macio Macio
Deputy Director of the Tax Office
Seoul High Court Decision 2005Nu12260 delivered on November 9, 2005
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
In an administrative litigation seeking revocation of a taxation disposition on the grounds of illegality, the tax authority bears the burden of proving the legality of the taxation disposition and the existence of the taxation requirement fact. Thus, the tax authority should bear the burden of proving necessary expenses which are the basis of the determination of taxable income in principle. However, only when there are special circumstances such as where the tax invoice on some of the expenses reported by the taxpayer was proved to be false without real transaction and it is disputed whether it is real expenses or not, and where it is proved to the extent that the taxpayer's other party to the payment has proved to be false, it is difficult for the taxpayer to present data such as books and evidence regarding the fact that such expenses have been actually paid (see Supreme Court Decisions 94Nu3407 delivered on July 14, 1995, 96Nu8192 delivered on September 26, 1997, etc.).
However, in the case of this case, even based on all evidence submitted by the defendant, it cannot be deemed that the tax invoice of this case was prepared in a false manner without real transaction, or that the purpose of the purchase cost of raw materials claimed by the plaintiff and the other party to the payment were proved to be false. Thus, the argument in the grounds of appeal purporting that the purchase cost of raw materials and the plaintiff's claim of this case which did not prove the other party to the payment should be rejected on the premise that such
In addition, in light of the records, the fact-finding of the court below is just and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete hearing, etc., which are contrary to the grounds of appeal.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.
Justices Kim Hwang-sik (Presiding Justice)