쟁점 인건비를 필요경비로 공제하지 않은 처분의 당부[국승]
Suwon District Court-2018-Gu Partnership-65232 ( October 10, 2018)
Appropriateness of the disposition not deducting key personnel expenses as necessary expenses
Since most of the facts constituting the basis of necessary expenses are located in the controlled area of the taxpayer, the tax authority has difficulty in proving them. Thus, if it is reasonable to have the taxpayer prove the facts in consideration of difficulty in proof or equity between the parties, the necessity of proof should be returned to the taxpayer.
2018Nu691 global income and revocation of disposition
IsaA
BB Director of the Tax Office
Suwon District Court Decision 2018Guhap65232 Decided October 10, 2018
201.01.31
2019.028
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. On December 7, 2017, the Defendant revoked each disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 19,590,930 (including additional tax of KRW 7,154,723), global income tax of KRW 26,160,020 (including additional tax of KRW 8,300,740), global income tax of KRW 15,197,980 (including additional tax of KRW 3,96,152), global income tax of KRW 14,628,20 (including additional tax of KRW 6,081,108), global income tax of KRW 8,328,820 (including additional tax of KRW 3,492,186) for the year 2014, global income tax of KRW 14,628,200 for the year 2015.
1. cite of the reasons for the written judgment in the first instance;
The reasoning of this Court concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for an advanced or additional statement as stated in Paragraph (2). Thus, this Court shall accept it in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Parts used or added;
The portion of the 3th 4th 5th "the plaintiff spent KRW 114,00,000 in c. c. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. ... ..... ..... from 2012 to 2016, the plaintiff had a newB, the plaintiff's wife, in addition to the voice services (ARS) operated by the plaintiff himself, take charge of the business of providing light-line information by mobile phone text services (Sms). In the process, not only three daily workers, KimCC and three daily workers, but also newB, who are the wife, spent KRW 14,00,00 in total as personnel expenses, such as paying a monthly wage of KRW 1,000,000 in .
At the bottom of 3 pages 1, 4 6 00 square meters "Ap. 1, 11" shall be cut up with "Ap. 1, 11, 15."
The portion of "10 identification cards" of 4 pages shall be raised with "10,14, 16 through 19".
From 34, 2, 1, 2 up to 34 up to 4 pages, 1, 2 “GlaCC et al., 3, respectively, shall be read as “NewB, KimCC et al.”
5.2. The following shall be added to the two pages:
No. 4) The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff paid personnel expenses in cash to the other daily workers through a bank account in the name of newB and the national bank account in the name of the newB. However, according to the details of the withdrawal from each of the above accounts (Evidence A 10) submitted by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff did not set the amount less than KRW 200,000,000, which is much less than the amount transferred from each of the above accounts in the name of newB to KimCC, and the time of the transfer also did not have any details of the withdrawal for about six months. Considering the details of the withdrawal from each of the above accounts, it is difficult to recognize that there was only the details of the withdrawal from time to time, not from a certain period of time, and there is no special reason to acknowledge that the Plaintiff paid personnel expenses to the new account in the name of the national bank or that there was no objective reason to recognize the Plaintiff’s withdrawal from each of the above accounts to the new account in the name of the national bank.
⑤ Meanwhile, the Plaintiff asserts that, as the Plaintiff’s wife, NewlyB, takes the leading role in the SP sector among the horse service business, the Plaintiff paid 100,000 won per month from 2012 to 2016. However, in light of the details of transfer from the No. 10B’s deposit account to the National Bank’s deposit account (Evidence A) in the agricultural bank account in the name of the newB, it is only recognized that the transfer from 100,000 to 5,60,000 to 10,000 to 5,60,000 to 5,000 won is less than a certain amount, and on the contrary, it is also recognized that there was a substantial transfer from the national bank deposit account to the Agricultural Bank’s deposit account. Accordingly, it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff paid labor costs to NewlyB solely on the withdrawal details of each of the above accounts, and there is no other objective evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, the Plaintiff’s assertion also rejected.
3. Conclusion
Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is groundless.