Whether it constitutes a disguised transaction

It is legitimate that the claim that the purchase price equivalent to the purchase tax invoice received from the data is purchased from the actual transaction office is not reliable and thus the corporate tax is imposed and disposed of in the absence of credibility.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

In the lawsuit of this case, all of the lawsuits seeking revocation of the imposition of Class A earned income tax and their defense tax are dismissed. All of the claims of the plaintiff are dismissed. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. Details of taxation; and

The following facts are either in dispute between the parties, or in respect of the statements in Eul evidence 1-1 to 13, Eul evidence 2-1 to 6, Eul evidence 5-1 to 4, Eul evidence 9-1 to 10, and each statement in Gap evidence 9-1 to 10, and there is no other counter-proof.

원고는 전기닥트시공등 전기공사업을 영위하는 법인으로서, 1987. 사업년도 1987. 1. 1. 〜 1987. 12. 31.)법인세를 신고함에 있어, 당해년도의 총수입금액을 금615,383,150원으로 신고하면서, 당해년도의 자재비로 금307,269,748원이 소요되었다고 하여 이를 손비로 처리한 다음 과세표준을 금20,189,079원으로 산정하고 여기에 세율(20%)을 적용하여, 1988. 3. 29. 위 사업년도의 법인세로 금4,037,815원, 그에 따른 방위세로 금807,563원을 자진납부하였다.

However, the amount of losses that the plaintiff appropriated as material cost in the business year above and treated is included in an amount equivalent to 86,384,491 won in total, 10 copies of the tax invoice in the name of the non-party Kim Jae-in, the representative of ○○○○○○○○, ○○○○○, ○○○○○○○○, which the plaintiff received while purchasing electric materials,. However, the defendant found that the above ○○○○ Electrical Kim Jae-in was found to have been merely issued a processed tax invoice without real transactions, and the above 10 copies of the tax invoice was deemed to have been received by the plaintiff without real transactions, and the tax base was calculated as 106,573,570 won in gross income, and the tax base was calculated as 42,243,555 won in total, 6,311,784 won in defense income amount, and the above 7th tax base was determined as 60,570 won in deductible income amount, and the above 25005th tax amount.

2. Both claims;

The defendant asserted that each taxation of this case is lawful on the ground that the above 10 tax invoice issued by the plaintiff was delivered only to the processed tax invoice without actual transaction, and that the plaintiff did not disclose actual purchase facts and submit materials proving that it is a real transaction. Accordingly, the plaintiff asserted that the above tax invoice was lawful. (1) The plaintiff purchased the electric materials from the non-party ○○○○○○○○○○○dong, the representative of the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and received them. The plaintiff was delivered with the notice that the above tax invoice was in the name of Kim○, not in the name of the former ○○○, but in the name of the former ○○○, the above tax invoice was not a processed transaction with the former ○○○○, on the ground that the title holder of the above tax invoice was not a real supplier. Accordingly, it cannot be concluded that the plaintiff's transaction with the former ○○○, merely because it was a bonus for the representative equivalent to the above tax invoice and that the tax invoice of this case was unlawful by the plaintiff's tax authority.

3. Whether Class A employment income tax and the procedure of the preceding trial on the detailed statement and disposition of the defense has been implemented.

According to Article 56 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, an administrative litigation against a disposition of imposition of national taxes shall be filed within 60 days from the date on which a decision on a request for adjudgment is notified, notwithstanding Articles 18 (2) and (3), and 20 of the Administrative Litigation Act. According to Articles 55 (1) and (2), 61 (1), 62, and 68 of the same Act, a request for adjudgment shall be filed through a request for review, and a request for review shall be filed within 60 days from the date on which he/she becomes aware of the relevant disposition (the date on which he/she receives a notice of disposition).

However, according to the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 of the above evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the plaintiff filed a request for review with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on June 4, 1992 for the imposition of corporate tax and its defense tax notified as of January 16, 192. However, without a request for review as to the imposition of Class A earned income and its defense tax notified as of June 16, 192, the request for review of the above corporate tax was dismissed, without a request for review as to the imposition of Class A earned income and its defense tax, it is obvious that the plaintiff filed a request for review with the National Tax Tribunal on August 20, 1992 and filed a request for appeal against the above imposition of Class A earned income and its defense income. Thus, the plaintiff did not lawfully go through the procedure of the previous trial as to the imposition of Class A earned income and its defense income, and the disposition of imposition of Class 3 taxes and its defense income and its defense tax are not identical to that of the corresponding case No. 15.

4. Whether the imposition of the corporate tax and the defense tax are legitimate;

A. Article 9(1) of the Corporate Tax Act provides that income for each business year of a domestic corporation shall be the total amount of gross income which falls or will fall under the business year minus the total amount of deductible expenses which fall or will fall under the business year concerned. Article 9(3) of the same Act provides that deductible expenses shall mean the amount of deductible expenses incurred from transactions that reduce the net assets of the corporation except for refund of capital or equity, disposal of surplus funds, and other transactions that fall under this Act. Article 12(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that deductible expenses shall be deductible expenses as set forth in the following subparagraphs except as provided in the Act and this Decree:

In this case, as to whether the Plaintiff actually purchased the electric materials equivalent to the supply value of 10 copies of the above tax invoice in the name of Kim Jae-in, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff supplied the whole materials of the above tax invoice to the Plaintiff on the basis of its business scale, and the Plaintiff’s evidence Nos. 5 and 8, consistent with the Plaintiff’s Note No. 5 as to this point, cannot be viewed as the material for fact-finding since their authenticity is not recognized. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s offering of the above tax invoice No. 11 through 14 and the witness Park Jong-young’s offering of evidence No. 1-2 is a special taxable person whose annual income amount is less than 24 million won at the time of 1987, and in light of its business scale, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff supplied the whole materials of the above tax invoice No. 1 to the Plaintiff on the basis of its lack of evidence No. 1 to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s offering price of the above tax invoice No. 4 as the evidence No. 61 to the Plaintiff’s offering of the above evidence No. 1 to the evidence No. 6

Therefore, the first argument of the plaintiff is groundless, on the premise that the plaintiff was issued ten copies of the tax invoice in the name of the above Kim ○, after actually purchasing the electric materials from the electric power line.

B. The corporate tax base determination is based on a field investigation method and based on the estimation method is exceptional cases. Thus, even if the account books or documentary evidence of a corporation are partially incomplete or false, if the account books or documentary evidence can be calculated based on the actual amount of the account books or documentary evidence unless there are special circumstances to the extent that the important parts of the account books or documentary evidence are incomplete or false, the additional taxation cannot be allowed. In light of the above employed evidence, in this case, in addition to the non-deductible expenses for the purchase of electrical materials equivalent to ten copies of the above tax invoice in the calculation of the income amount of the plaintiff corporation, it cannot be viewed that there are no account books or documentary evidence in the calculation of the income amount of the plaintiff corporation, or that the important parts are incomplete or false. Thus, the plaintiff's second assertion cannot be accepted.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit on the revocation of the disposition imposing Class A earned income tax and its defense tax is unlawful. Thus, all of the claims of the plaintiff are dismissed without entering into the judgment on the merits. Since all of the claims of the plaintiff are without merit, they are dismissed. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff who lost. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all.

January 28, 1994