Additional income from deducting the purchase cost from the omitted sales

It is illegal disposition to add the total sales omitted to the gross income without considering the purchase cost, considering that the purchase price was more than the actual transaction at the time of purchase, even though pure profit should be determined by adding the pure profit to the gross income and corporate tax, etc., but it is not illegal to add the total sales omitted to the gross income.

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

1. The defendant's imposition of corporate tax of 14,864,290 won for the year 1981; corporate tax of 1,84,10 won for the 1982; corporate tax of 19,131,80 won for the 1982; corporate tax of 3,406,800 won for the 1983; corporate tax of 14,440,460 won for the 1983; tax of 2,970 won for the 1987; tax of 1,138,000 won for the 1967; tax of 1,157,47,470 won for the 1981; tax of 1,630,000 won for the defense income of 2,00 won for the 1982; tax of 3,063,000 won for the 197,000 won for the 197,07197.

1. Details of taxation; and

The following facts are acknowledged according to each of the statements in Eul evidence 1-1-9, Eul evidence 2-1-9, Eul evidence 3-1-9, Eul evidence 4-1-3, Eul evidence 5-1-2, Eul evidence 6-1-2, Eul evidence 7-1-2, Eul evidence 8-1-2, Eul evidence 9-1-2, and Eul evidence 9-2.

A. The Plaintiff has a head office in ○○○○-dong ○○○-dong ○○○○-dong ○○○○-dong ○○○○○-dong ○○○○○-dong ○○○○○○-dong ○○○○○○-dong ○○○○ dong, each place of business, and is a corporation whose purpose is vehicle and household L.P. gas sales, etc. from June 1 of the following year to May 31 of the following year.

B. (1) On August 14, 1982, when filing a return on the tax base and the amount of the corporate tax for the year of the business ( June 1, 1981 - May 31, 1982), the Plaintiff reported the tax base to KRW 662,373,279, and paid the calculated tax amount to KRW 257,449,311, and thereafter, reported the tax base to KRW 665,83,113, and the amount of the calculated tax to KRW 258,902,441, and paid the additional amount and the additional amount of the calculated tax to KRW 258,902,41; and (2) on August 16, 1982, when filing a return on the tax base and the amount of the corporate tax for the corporate tax for the year of the business (the tax base of June 1, 1982 - May 31, 1983), reported the calculated tax base to KRW 708,3194,284.198.38

C. Around May 1987, the Defendant: (a) received a transfer from the ○○○○○○○○○○○○ Office, the head of the ○○○○ Office Kim○○○○○○○○○ Office from the ○○○ District Prosecutors’ Office; (b) sold a considerable amount of EL.gas from June 1, 1981 to May 31, 1984; (c) omitted the Plaintiff’s report on corporate tax base without entering it in the books; (d) omitted the Plaintiff’s report on the tax base; and (e) examined the Plaintiff’s account books and documents pursuant to Article 68 of the Corporate Tax Act, including the Plaintiff’s total amount of KRW 40,00,000,01,820, 820, 1982 through 31, 1982; and (e) omitted the Plaintiff’s report on the tax base between the Plaintiff’s ○○○○○, etc. and the Plaintiff’s total amount of tax base from 36.7.85.

(1) In determining the tax base of the Plaintiff’s above corporate tax for the year 1981, the Defendant shall add the amount of 15,45,200 won which is subtracted from the sales amount of 40,00 won to the total amount of 170,00 won, 196, 294, 197, 368, 197, 296, 197, 368, 197, 196, 47, 196, 197, 196, 197, 206, 197, 197, 206, 197, 196, 306, 197, 196, 197, 196, 306, 197, 197, 196, 196, 208, 197, 367, 197, 297,

2. Determination of legality of taxation disposition

The defendant asserts that the taxation disposition of this case is legitimate, first, the plaintiff filed a return on the total sales amount in good faith and omitted part of the sales amount in the return of tax base for each business year, and second, since the gas sold by the plaintiff was generated by considerable decrease in the sales amount, the amount remaining after deducting the amount corresponding to the above reduction amount from the sales amount shall be regarded as the sales profit. However, the defendant added the total sales amount to the sales profit. Third, in order to sell the omitted gas, the plaintiff purchased and disbursed the corresponding amount of gas at another place in order to sell the omitted gas, and then the purchase price was deducted from the total sales amount, and the remaining amount after deducting the purchase price was deducted from the total sales amount should be added to the gross income, the defendant asserts that the taxation disposition of this case is unlawful.

A. According to the above evidence of this case, the defendant examined and decided the total sales amount of 15,456,20 won for each business year by the plaintiff's 1981; 29,083,975 won for 1982; 28,756,948 won for 1982; 36.19,97.29,967,97.29,97,96.19,977.29,96.47,97,96.9,97,96.29,96.9,97,97.9,96.2,97,96.9,97,96.2,97,96.9,97,96.2,97,97,96.1,97,96,97,2,97,96.2,96,2,961,2,97,2,97,2,

Therefore, in calculating the business income of the plaintiff for each business year, the defendant added only the sales revenue of the above recognition to the gross income and imposed corporate tax, etc., and without considering all the purchase cost, such as the purchase cost, which was recognized as more than the actual decrease in the sales revenue at the time of purchase, and deemed as less than the marginal profit, was omitted, the defendant added the total amount of the omission in sales to the gross income (However, in calculating the omission in sales for the business year 1982 as seen earlier, the defendant deducted the purchase cost corresponding to the omission in sales, but there is a difference in the deduction amount). Thus, the defendant's taxation disposition in this case is not unlawful within the scope of the above.

B. As seen earlier, the Defendant considered that the above omitted amount was added to gross income for each business year after adding the whole amount of the above omitted amount to gross income, and recognized as bonus belonging to the Plaintiff’s representative and imposed annual Class A labor income tax on the Plaintiff. As seen above, the Plaintiff did not impose annual Class A labor income tax on the Plaintiff during the business year 1,183,340 between January 23, 1981 and May 23, 1982; the Plaintiff did not impose the above annual salary income for up to 1,914,595, from June 5, 1982 to May 12, 1983; the Defendant did not impose the above annual salary income for up to 1,47,896, from June 2, 1983 to November 6, 1983; the Defendant did not impose the above annual salary income for up to 1,498, and the above annual salary income for up to 1,983.4 to 1988.4

(c) Furthermore, when calculating the corporate tax amount and the defense tax amount for each business year of the above recognition based on the reasonable tax base added with earnings for each business year of the plaintiff, the corporate tax amount and the defense tax amount for each business year of the year 1981 shall be KRW 1,157,470 as stated in the attached Table (1) and KRW 138,290 as corporate tax amount, and the corporate tax amount and defense tax amount for the year 1982 as stated in the attached Table (2) shall be KRW 4,635,890 as corporate tax amount, KRW 701,250 as tax amount for the year 1983, KRW 30 as stated in the attached Table (3) and KRW 1,271,950 as stated in the attached Table (3), KRW 1,975, KRW 90 as corporate tax amount for the income and defense tax amount for the year 198 and KRW 198 as stated in the attached Table (1).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's taxation disposition of this case should be revoked in an unlawful manner to the extent that exceeds the reasonable tax amount of the above recognition. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above recognition scope, and the remaining parts are dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Articles 89 and 92 of the Civil Procedure Act as to the burden of litigation costs.

April 13, 1990