(심리불속행) 부동산컨설팅 회사에 용역비를 지출하였음을 인정할 수 없음[국승]
Seoul High Court 2013Nu2572 ( November 07, 2013)
(C) A real estate consulting company shall not be deemed to have paid the service cost.
(2) The Plaintiff did not submit any objective financial data regarding the payment of service costs or the assertion that the service costs incurred by the Plaintiff should be recognized as necessary expenses, and the consulting company cannot be deemed necessary expenses in light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff did not submit such objective financial data as to the payment of service costs; and (b) the Plaintiff treated the amount of service costs as cash recovery
Article 97 (Calculation of Necessary Expenses for Transfer Income)
2013Du25153 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax
BAA
Samsung Head of Samsung Tax Office
Seoul High Court Decision 2013Nu2572 Decided November 7, 2013
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.
All of the records of this case and the judgment of the court below and the grounds of appeal were examined, but it is clear that the assertion on the grounds of appeal by the appellant constitutes Article 4 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure for Appeal and therefore, the appeal is dismissed under Article 5 of the above Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by