실제 노무비 지출 여부[국승]
Whether the actual labor cost is paid
The taxpayer who asserts that the amount of labor cost corresponding to the receipt of false tax invoices was omitted from the data should prove that the amount of labor cost corresponding to the receipt of false tax invoices was omitted. However, it cannot be readily concluded that there was no other evidence to prove it.
Article 14 of the Corporate Tax Act for each business year
Article 19 (Scope of Deductible Expenses)
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The decision of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's imposition of corporate tax of 218,212,220 won against the plaintiff on July 14, 2003 and the imposition of corporate tax of 28,629,930 won on July 5, 2004 and corporate tax of 29,663,340 won on July 5, 2004 shall be revoked.
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
This court's reasoning is the same as the entry of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following judgments, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the
2. Additional determination
A. The plaintiff's assertion
The plaintiff asserts that, in full view of the following circumstances, the payment of labor costs equivalent to the value of the processed tax invoice may be recognized as having been actually made.
(1) The labor ratio compared to the construction amount in the construction works publicly notified by the Ministry of Labor is 28% of the general construction works in 1999, 29% of the general construction works in 2000, 38% of the subcontracted construction works (the result of a factual inquiry about the party members' labor department) and the National Tax Service's statement of the cost of construction (production) analysis conducted by the National Tax Service is at least 30% of the total labor ratio in 1999 and 2000 (the defendant's reference materials attached to the brief dated January 22, 2007). However, the plaintiff's labor ratio compared to the sales cost based on the details of the corporate tax in 199 and 2000 is less than 20%.
(2) The Plaintiff’s actual labor ratio for the three sub-subcontracts that ○○○○○○○○ Co., Ltd. received from the Plaintiff was 27.46% of the construction work (from March 1, 1999 to June 30, 2001), 39.82% of the construction work of ○○○○○○ apartment (from January 1, 200 to December 31, 200), 31.17% of the construction work of ○○○○-1 Railroad No. 2-1 Nowon on January 1, 200 (from January 1, 200 to December 31, 200), and there was no tax invoice for 199 to substitute for the actual labor cost of 151,260,000 (No. 400,000 won) and the actual labor cost of 190,000 won (No. 970,000 won).
B. Determination
(1) In preparation for cases where it is difficult for the Minister of Labor to determine the total amount of wages, which serves as the basis for calculating the insurance premium pursuant to the Act on the Collection, etc. of Insurance Premiums for Employment Insurance and Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance, the ratio announced by the Minister of Labor, taking into account the ratio of the total amount of wages, etc. from the total amount of construction work for the preceding three years by the business owner. The National Tax Service’s statement of the cost of construction (manufacture) cost is an internal material prepared by the National Tax Service to be used by the National Tax Service for the selection, etc. of the person subject to investigation through analyzing the details of taxpayers’ declarations. Such material can be an internal material to respond to the fact that the ratio of labor cost in the construction work would normally be a certain extent. However, it cannot be presumed that the labor cost reported at the time of filing a report on a corporate tax for a specific business year of a corporation falls short of the above ratio.
(2) However, each of subparagraphs 3 through 5, which presented as evidence for the labor cost actually paid by the Plaintiff, is merely a detailed statement of the construction cost submitted by the Plaintiff to ○○○○○ Incorporated Company by each construction work. The evidence Nos. 19-1 and 2, respectively, is unclear on the date and time of the preparation, as well as on the unfolded balance sheet prepared by the Plaintiff’s employee on a yearly and monthly basis, and it is impossible to believe that there is no objective evidence proving the original material or its content, and the testimony by ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ as a witness of the political party is insufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s assertion, and there is no other evidence to prove that labor cost was actually paid as alleged by the Plaintiff.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is just and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.