beta
(영문) 대법원 2016. 11. 10. 선고 2016두46892 판결

(심리불속행) 가공경비를 가수금으로 처리하였더라도 가수금은 반제를 예정하지 아니한 명목상의 채무로 볼 이유없음.[국승]

Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit

Busan High Court 2016Nu20708 (2016.08)

Title

(C) Even if the processing expenses are disposed of as provisional receipts, it is reasonable to view the provisional receipts as a nominal obligation not to set up a Ban.

Summary

(Summary of the original trial) The processing expenses of the non-party company were disposed of as provisional receipts, and even if the provisional receipts were disposed of as the profits from debt exemption, so long as they were appropriated as provisional receipts, it shall not be deemed as non-presumed provisional receipts, and it shall not be deemed as non-presumed provisional receipts, and the non-party company's assertion that they were disposed of as the profits from debt exemption without filing a revised report is difficult to believe

Related statutes

Article 40 of the Corporate Tax Act; Article 106 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act

Cases

2016Du46892. Revocation of notice of change in income amount

Plaintiff, Appellant

AA Corporation

Defendant, appellant and appellant

BB Director of the Tax Office

The second instance decision

Busan High Court Decision 2016Nu20807 Decided July 8, 2016

Imposition of Judgment

November 10, 2016

Text

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

Reasons

All of the records of this case and the judgment of the court below and the grounds of appeal were examined, but the grounds of appeal by the appellant are not included in the grounds provided by each subparagraph of Article 4(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure for Appeal. Thus, the appeal is dismissed pursuant to Article 5 of the same Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent