It is difficult to view that the imposition of value-added tax is a taxation due to illegal tax investigation.

C. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

2) Determination on the disposition of imposition of the corporate tax of this case

A) Whether an expansion of the scope of tax investigation is lawful

(1) Article 81-9(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "Tax officials are specifically suspected of tax evasion."

Where it is confirmed that it is related to various taxable periods or other items of taxation, etc.

shall not extend the scope of the tax investigation during the process of the investigation except as provided in this section.

further, the term "specific suspicion of tax evasion" is related to several taxable periods or to other items of taxation;

one of the "where confirmed", Article 63-11 (1) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Framework Act on National Taxes

Specific items in the taxable period subject to investigation, such as suspicion of omission or mistake in application of tax-related Acts, are different;

There are charges of tax evasion identical or similar in the taxable period or errors in the application of tax-related Acts.

that is suspected of being necessary to conduct an investigation of the item in another taxable period.”

(c)

(2) According to the facts found earlier, 2016 business among the disposition imposing the corporate tax of this case.

portion of the year for which the benefits paid to the DD registered as the auditor for the expenses of the office

(1) The Plaintiff’s 2015 project, which was originally subject to investigation, was conducted on the ground that the aforementioned reasons were met.

It is the same as the tax disposition found in the process of investigation of the year corporate tax;

DD for the business year 2016 as long as it had been registered as an auditor continuously in the business year 2016.

There is sufficient room to suspect that the office cost of DD has been incurred.

The corporate tax investigation of the Plaintiff on the ground that the Defendant paid DD benefits shall be the corporate tax for the business year 2016.

An apparent tax pursuant to Article 63-11 (1) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes at the time of expanding the scope;

Specific items in the taxable period subject to investigation, such as suspicion of omission or mistake in application of tax-related Acts, are different;

There are charges of tax evasion identical or similar in the taxable period or errors in the application of tax-related Acts.

investigation of the item is necessary because it is doubtful that it is necessary to investigate the item in the other taxable period.

It is reasonable to see that there were circumstances to see. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

B) Whether non-deductible of the benefits of DD is legitimate

(1) The lawfulness of the taxation disposition in the administrative litigation seeking the revocation of the taxation disposition on the grounds of illegality

The burden of proof of gender and the existence of the taxation requirement is, in principle, imposed on the tax authority.

As a matter of principle, the tax authority's proof of necessary expenses or losses which are the basis of the determination of income.

(b) the liability of the person liable for tax payment. However, the liability of the person liable for tax payment is generally applicable.

In addition, most of the facts that form the basis thereof are favorable to others are controlled by taxpayers.

The tax authority's difficulty or difficulty in proof because there is a case where it is difficult for it to prove.

Where it is reasonable to allow a taxpayer to prove in consideration of equity between the deceased and the deceased.

The need for certification may be attributed to the person liable for duty payment (Supreme Court Decision 91Nu92 delivered on July 28, 1992).

See Supreme Court Decisions 10909Du4599 Decided October 31, 2013, etc.

Section 2 of Article 19 of the former Corporate Tax Act provides that "losss recognized as losses" shall be deemed as losses under this Act and other Acts.

(2) Except as otherwise provided in section (1) of this title, the corporation

loss or cost generally accepted as normal or directly related to profit.

Provisions on the scope and classification of losses shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Accordingly, Article 43 (4) of the former Enforcement Decree of Corporate Tax Act is a non-standing corporation.

The remuneration paid to officers shall be the case of the avoidance of wrongful calculation under Article 52 of the Corporate Tax Act.

In other words, the corporation's performance of duties shall be included in the calculation of losses.

The fees paid by the corporation shall, in principle, be included in deductible expenses as expenses incurred in performing the business.

Although such remuneration is subject to the performance of duties, it is paid as compensation for the performance of duties.

In order to include the remuneration of officers in deductible expenses, first of all, the officer's non-standing officer's work

It should be proved that the plaintiff performed it, which needs to be proved.

(2) Therefore, the above facts are examined, as well as the above evidence and evidence Nos. 6 and 9.

the following circumstances, i.e., a statement or image, as a whole, may be acknowledged by considering the overall intent of the pleading

① The Plaintiff performed an audit by frequently accessing the Plaintiff’s electronic computer system.

However, the connection details of the DD cited by the Plaintiff are not the sole account of DD, but the CEO.

Part of the Account connected to a home computer, IP 49.239.190.** of a mobile device;

61.74.166.** Part of the work hours, part of the outside route, and DDR's behalf.

In light of the fact that the voting director FF and the married couple are the FF, concluding that the above connection details were connected with DD.

not, even if DD had a final connection through the above account, there is room to view that D had a final connection.

(1) The details of such use that may be deemed to have been carried out as an auditor after access to the

As to the overall operation of the company with the representative director, officers, and directors of DDR

debate, participation in the workshop, visit from time to time to time at the branch, and offer the idea to the plaintiff.

Party A, 6, 9, submitted by the Plaintiff, presented an opinion on the Si or advertising broadcast.

It is insufficient to recognize the activity content of the above DoD solely with each description or image of the evidence;

In addition, there is no evidence to prove otherwise, most of the circumstances cited by the Plaintiff are reduced by itself.

(3) A corporation subject to external audit by DD, that is not deemed to have the nature of its business;

Approval that is deemed to have been prepared if the company actually worked as an auditor for two years;

Detailed data, such as documents, draft documents, general meetings of shareholders, details of attendance at meetings of the board of directors, and details of audit records;

F. F. F. F. F. of the Plaintiff’s representative director at the time of the tax investigation

According to the statement of the check(s)(s)(6), it appears that there is no such document.

Comprehensively taking account of all evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, DDR is actually audited by the Plaintiff.

It is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff performed his duties, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

the benefits paid to DDR in the year 2015, 2016 by the auditor for the performance of the duties

Article 19 of the former Corporate Tax Act, since it cannot be deemed as a sudden remuneration, it constitutes a non-business cost and thus constitutes a non-business cost

Pursuant to paragraph (2), the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part cannot be included in the Plaintiff’s deductible expenses. The Plaintiff’s assertion on this different premise

all are without reason.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

(c)

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

On February 23, 2018, the defendant of the Gu office's place of origin against the plaintiff on February 23, 2018, the disposition of imposition of the value-added taxx,xx,xx,xx,xx,xx,xx,xx,xx, and the value-added tax on the first quarter of 2014, which was made against the plaintiff on February 2013, 2018, shall be revoked. Each disposition of imposition of the value-added tax on the second quarter of 2014, the value-added taxx,xx,xx,xx, andxxx, and the corporate tax on the business year 2015.

A. The Plaintiff is a company established on April 17, 200 and engaged in automobile rental business as its main business. (b) The Director ofCC notified the Plaintiff of the extension of the scope of tax investigation (type conversion) around October 16, 2017, while conducting an integrated investigation against the Plaintiff for the business year 2015. The Director ofCC notified the Plaintiff of the extension of the scope of tax investigation (type conversion) as follows. As a result of the tax investigation, the Director ofCC deducted the Plaintiff from the input tax amount of value-added tax from January 1, 2013 to January 2015, 200, the Plaintiff deducted the Plaintiff from the input tax amount of value-added tax, and the Plaintiff’s expense for automobile maintenance from the non-business small automobiles used by the employee engaging in the Plaintiff’s extra-business business. (iii) DD registered as the Plaintiff’s auditor to the Defendant for non-deductible tax exemption

D. Accordingly, on February 23, 2018, the Defendant rendered a disposition of imposition of the Plaintiff on ① the disposition of imposition of the value-added tax on the first half of 2013, the second half of 2013, the second half of the value-added taxx,xx,xx,xx,xx, 2014, the second half of 2014 value-added taxx,xx,xx,x,xx, 2015, the first half of 2015, the second of 2015, each of the disposition of imposition of the value-added taxx,x,xx, andxx (hereinafter referred to as “the disposition of imposition of the value-added tax in this case”); ② the corporate tax,x,x, x, 2016, the corporate tax, and the value-added tax for the business year 2016, each of the following dispositions (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition of imposition”); and

E. On April 25, 2018, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with each of the instant dispositions and filed a petition for an inquiry with the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on August 24, 2018.

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that each of the dispositions of this case should be revoked in an unlawful manner for the following reasons.

1) The Director of the Regional Tax Office related to the imposition of the value-added tax in this case conducted a tax investigation against the Plaintiff without notifying the Plaintiff of the extension of the scope of tax investigation on the items of value-added tax in violation of Article 81-9(2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 15220, Dec. 19, 2017; hereinafter the same). As such, the disposition imposing the value-added

2) Regarding the disposition of imposition of the corporate tax of this case

(A) procedural defects in a tax investigation;

Since it is difficult to view that there is a clear suspicion of tax evasion under Article 81-9(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 63(1)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act with the Plaintiff’s payment of benefits to DD, the scope of tax investigation for this reason is unlawful. Ultimately, the part of corporate tax for the business year 2016, among the disposition imposing corporate tax in this case, is based on an illegal tax

B) Non-Inclusion of DD's benefits in deductible expenses

(1) According to Article 43(4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 28640, Feb. 13, 2018; hereinafter the same), remuneration paid to non-standing executive officers should be included in deductible expenses in principle. Thus, even if non-standing executive officers with a special relationship are non-standing executive officers, it should be included in deductible expenses only by calculating how much remuneration was paid in comparison with those without a special relationship pursuant to Article 52 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 16008, Dec. 24, 2018; hereinafter the same shall apply). Nevertheless, the disposition of imposing corporate tax in this case is unlawful as it does not consider Article 43(4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, and it is unlawful as it excluded the total

(2) Around 2015, around 572 times in 2015 and around 717 times in 2016, DDD had access to the Plaintiff’s computerized service system and participated in the work site and overall operation of the company with representatives and executive officers, and participated in the work site each year. Along with the fact that DD offered access to the Plaintiff’s computerized service system and offered access to the Plaintiff’s representative and branch office or offered access to the branch office by himself/herself, and that DD suggested ideas or pointed out shortage of broadcasting advertising, DD should be deemed to have actually performed its duties as the Plaintiff’s auditor. Furthermore, DD’s benefits paid to DD should be considered as compensation for the portion that DD paid at all while serving as a non-registered director from around 2008 to 2015, compared to the case where D paid benefits to the representative director and executive officers other than the Plaintiff’s benefits paid to D in excess of D’s benefits paid.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

The following facts may be acknowledged by integrating the purpose of the whole pleadings in each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 5, 7, 8, 10 through 12, and Eul evidence No. 3 through 11.

1) DD was registered as the wife of FF of the Plaintiff’s representative director, from April 17, 200 to April 19, 2007, and was registered as the Plaintiff’s auditor on December 1, 2015. (2) Around 2015 and around 2016, the Plaintiff paid the following benefits to the Plaintiff’s officers, including DD and included them in deductible expenses.

3) The Plaintiff’s electronic service system’s CEO account can be stamped by FF and DD0,000, and the period of time maintenance exceeds one hour, and the Plaintiff’s electronic service system’s access records in 2015 and 2016 are as follows:

4) 원고 대표이사 FFF는 세무조사 과정에서 DDD에게 지급한 급여와 관련하여 다음과 같은 의견서(을 제6호증)를 제출하였다. "당사는 출퇴근을 전산로그인 자료로 관리하며, 기일문서나 결재서류에 사장 및 임원의 사인을 하는 방식이 아니고 전산상 업무를 처리합니다. 또한 이사회 참여는 원칙상 이사진이 참여하고 감사는 참관하는 방식이라서 따로 참여에 대해 출석표에 서명을 받아두지는 않습니다. 추가로 감사 DDD이 본사 및 영업소를 방문하여 업무 점검을 한 점, 회사 워크˜乍�항상 참여하여 활동한 점, 그리고 대표이사와 매일 회사 업무에 대해 의논한 것, 직원들의 대소사에 관여하여 살핀 점은 감사로서 다양한 업무를 하였다고 소명하였음에도 불구 등기임원을 근로자로 보지 않겠다는 세무서의 세무조사결과 처분에 동의할 수 없습니다." 5) 한편 CC지방국세청장은 원고에 대한 2015 사업연도 법인통합조사 중 ① 원고의 외근업무를 하는 직원들이 사용하는 비영업용 소형승용차 관련 차량유류비, 차량정 비비에 대한 매입세액 공제 부분과 ② DDD에게 지급한 급여에 대한 인건비 손금불산입에 관하여 구 국세기본법 시행령(2018. 2. 13. 대통령령 제28644호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 같다) 제63조의11 제1항 제3호에 따른 세무조사범위 확대가 필요하다고 판단하고, 2017. 11. 2. 납세자보호담당관으로부터 아래 항목에 관하여 세무조사범위 확대에 대한 승인을 받았다.

6) At the time of each of the instant dispositions, the imposition of value-added tax and the corporate tax imposed by the Defendant against the Plaintiff are as follows.

D. Determination

1) Determination on the imposition of value-added tax of this case

A) Article 81-9(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "no tax official shall extend the scope of a tax investigation under investigation, except in cases prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as where it is confirmed that specific suspicion of tax evasion exists for several taxable periods or is related to other items of tax, etc." Paragraph (2) provides that "if the scope of a tax investigation is extended pursuant to paragraph (1), the taxpayer shall be notified in writing of the reason and scope thereof." In such cases, the purpose of providing that taxpayers shall be notified in writing is to ensure that taxpayers can properly exercise their right to defense in the course of the tax investigation by ascertaining the items of tax investigation and the reasons therefor. Meanwhile, according to Articles 45 and 46 of the Regulations on the Protection of Taxpayer Affairs, a taxpayer protection officer of the investigating agency, who intends to contribute to effectively protecting the rights and interests of taxpayers, the head of the investigating agency shall file an application for extension of the scope of tax investigation three or five days before the expiration of the investigation period, and in such case, the head of the investigating agency shall determine whether to grant approval after deliberation by the taxpayer protection committee.

B) As seen earlier, the Director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office did not notify the Plaintiff of the expansion of the scope of investigation into the Plaintiff as value-added tax regarding the integrated investigation into the corporation for the business year 2015. However, the aforementioned findings were as follows: (a) the Seoul Regional Tax Office, while conducting a tax investigation regarding the integrated investigation into the Plaintiff for the business year 2015; (b) the Seoul Regional Tax Office notified the Plaintiff of the reduction of the scope of tax amount as corporate tax from 2012 to 2014 regarding the Plaintiff’s automobile maintenance cost, the non-deduction of the input tax related to the automobile maintenance cost, and the non-taxation related to the automobile maintenance cost; and (c) the Seoul Regional Tax Office, based on the fact that it did not request the Plaintiff to submit the data relating to the tax amount to the Plaintiff’s x1 to 2016, the Seoul Regional Tax Office’s corporate tax and the non-value-added tax amount to the Plaintiff’s x1 to 2016, respectively; (d) the Seoul Regional Tax Office requested the Plaintiff to submit the data related to the above x x 201 to the Plaintiff’s.