logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2014.07.03 2013구합3399
법인세부과처분취소
Text

1. The following dispositions that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on March 2, 2011 shall be revoked:

Corporate tax belonging to the business year 2007 827,764.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 6, 2005, the Plaintiff was established by investing 100% in the Korea Tourism Organization, and after obtaining permission for casino business under the Tourism Promotion Act, the Plaintiff is running a casino business exclusively for foreigners at the Seoul Gangnam-gu, Seoul Moro hotel, and Busan Moro hotel hotel.

B. From December 7, 2010 to February 28, 2011, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office conducted a tax investigation on the Plaintiff, and notified the Defendant of the imposition of corporate tax for the following reasons.

① Excess compact (excluding transportation and lodging expenses, out of the compact costs paid by the Plaintiff in excess of internal payment standards) 2, prof chips (the presumed loss of prof chips provided to a specific person at the time of exercising the prof chip), ③ overseas sales promotion expenses (the amount paid by the Plaintiff’s employee to the existing customer as gift expenses, etc. from among overseas sales promotion expenses paid by the Plaintiff’s employee, or from overseas sales promotion expenses paid by the overseas office; hereinafter “Dispute sales promotion expenses”); ④ Non-Real-Real-Name Compact (the compact, after the Plaintiff’s performance of a specific customer’s game was registered in another customer’s name; hereinafter “Non-Real-Namecom”) is denied as entertainment expenses.

(5) A solicitation fee (a fee for the transfer of a customer who is not subject to the transfer by the plaintiff to a specialized solicitor at will or in error; hereinafter referred to as "market solicitation fee") shall be denied as a deductible expense with expenses not related to the affairs.

(6) Additional tax on the non-receiving amount of the regular receipt [the plaintiff shall be limited to the Memeri Group (Jimei Group; hereinafter referred to as "Memera").

(ii) pay solicitation fees and impose no other eligibility evidence, such as tax invoices, on which the domestic permanent establishment of Memerasia is recognized as a result of the tax investigation.

(hereinafter referred to as “additional Tax for Dispute.” The Nos. 1 and 1 of the No. 1 of the No. 1 of the No. 1 of the items were included in deductible expenses.

arrow