early 201J 2971 ( December 13, 2011)

In respect of the same fund, the income tax shall be imposed on the KimB, and in respect of the wholeCC, whether the gift tax is double taxation.

Income tax on KimB is the bonus income received by KimB from the plaintiff, and the gift tax on KimCC, which was donated by KimB, and thus the subject of taxation or the subject of taxation is not different from the subject of double taxation by the taxpayer.

Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act

2011Guhap633 Revocation of notice of change in income amount

OOO Co., Ltd.

The director of the Southern Incheon District Office

July 19, 2012

August 23, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On May 4, 2011, the defendant's notice of change in the amount of income stated in the separate sheet against the plaintiff on May 4, 201 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff was a corporation that runs the business of processing and treating scrap metal and the business of selling scrap metal, and the Plaintiff purchased scrap metal in cash from individuals from 2006 to 2009, thereby raising a false fund of KRW 000 (including value-added tax).

B. The defendant denied the input tax deduction to the plaintiff, imposed the value added tax and corporate tax in deductible expenses, and disposed of the income as bonus to the representative director KimB, the representative director of the plaintiff, as the plaintiff's representative, and notified each change in the income amount as stated in the notice of change in the income amount. Among them, the income amount related to the above outflow amount is the same as the stated amount in each claim for cancellation in the above attached Table (hereinafter "the notice of change in the part of income amount in the claim for cancellation").

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on July 22, 201, but the appeal was dismissed on December 13, 201.

[Reasons for Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1 to 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The plaintiff deposited 000 won out of the outflow from the company to the bank account of the non-party KimCC (herB) and 000 won out of the money was used as the plaintiff's business expenses for the plaintiff's business expenses, and it is unlawful to dispose of the amount as the bonus of the KimB even though the ownership and reason of the outflow from the company is clear.

(2) Furthermore, with respect to the same funds, the income tax was imposed on KimB, while the gift tax was imposed on the whole funds, and the outflow amount was imposed on KRW 000,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,00,000,00,00,000,00,00,00,000

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination on the attribution of the amount of outflowed money

(1) 000 won

According to the testimony of Gap evidence 3-2, 45, 6, and 7-1, 2, and 1, and 7-2, and 00 won of the amount discharged out of the country is recognized as having been deposited by the plaintiff's employee into the bank account of KimCC. On the other hand, in addition to the above evidence, the whole purport of the arguments, including the above evidence, it can also be recognized that the plaintiff's employee or stockholder is only a parent of KimB, and the plaintiff's employee has paid the above money in accordance with the directions of KimB. Considering the above facts of recognition, in this case where the plaintiff cannot find any legal cause for the payment of money to KimCC other than the direction of KimB, and the above money is paid by the plaintiff to KimB under the direction of KimB, and it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff's bonus was directly paid to KimCC, the other party to the payment of the plaintiff's bonus, and that the plaintiff's bonus and the payment of the plaintiff's bonus are not paid to the plaintiff in this case.

(2) 000 won

In full view of the evidence No. 3-2, evidence No. 1, and evidence No. 2-1 through No. 23, and the testimony of the witness EE, it is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff used 00 won out of the disclosed money as project expenses, and there is no evidence to recognize that it was used. In this case, the above money is deemed to have been reverted to KimB, the representative pursuant to the proviso of Article 106(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, and the first disposition in this case is legitimate, and the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

D. Judgment on double taxation assertion

As seen earlier, the amount deposited by the Plaintiff into the banking system of KimCC is the payment in the so-called rectangular relationship, and the payment is the bonus payment to the Plaintiff’s KimB and the donation payment to KimCC by KimB. Therefore, the income tax on KimB is that KimB is the bonus income received by the Plaintiff, and the gift tax on the GCC is that the KimB is each taxable object of the property donated by KimB, and that the subject of taxation and the taxpayer are different, and the above claim by the Plaintiff is groundless.

E. Determination on the assertion of violation of the principle of excessive prohibition

As seen earlier, the income tax on KimB and gift tax on KimCC are different from each other, while the difference between the legitimate tax amount that the plaintiff originally should have paid is added to the difference between the legitimate tax amount that the plaintiff should have paid because the plaintiff had paid under-paid as a temporary park. In light of the above, it is difficult to view the disposition of this case as excessively infringing the plaintiff's rights in violation of the principle of proportionality, and there is no reason for the plaintiff's assertion.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit, all of them are dismissed, and it is decided as per Disposition.