early 209 Heavy2610 ( December 31, 2009)
Although it is argued that the representative is only a representative in form, it is reasonable to regard the representative as the representative in registration unless it is proved by objective evidence or a court decision that the representative is not the representative in the corporation.
Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes / [Real Taxation] Article 106 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act
The appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of disposition;
A. The claimant had been registered as the representative director from March 19, 2004 to June 11, 2006 according to the certified transcript of the corporate register of the (i)OOO (referring to the owner before the change of corporate name) that engaged in housing construction business during the period from June 1, 2001 to August 22, 2007. (ii)OOOO reported the corporate tax and value-added tax by receiving seven copies of purchase tax invoices of KRW 413,819,752 (hereinafter referred to as “market purchase tax invoices”) in the second period of 2005.
B. The disposition agency confirmed the fact that (a) OOOOO received the purchase tax invoice from (b)OOOO development without any real transaction; (c) it notified the applicant who is the representative director of (b)OOOOOOOOO of the fact that he disposed of the purchase price as a bonus and notified of the change in the amount of income at the time of the disposal of the purchase price (including value added tax) as a bonus and the notification of the change in the amount of income. On December 23, 2008, the disposition agency notified the applicant of the fact that he received 163,787,660 won of global income tax for the year 2005.
C. On February 27, 2009, an appellant filed an appeal on June 23, 2009.
2. Opinions of the claimant and disposition agency;
A. The claimant's assertion
The claimant was registered as the representative director of the (ju)OOOO only upon the request of the EOOOO that was a bad credit standing condition, and the actual representative of the (ju)OOOOOOO is a UO that was in charge of both the head of the Tong and the funds. Therefore, this taxation disposition is unfair on the premise that the claimant is the representative of the (ju)OOOOOOO.
(b) Opinions of disposition agencies;
(1) On March 19, 2004 through June 11, 2006, the certified transcript of the corporate register of the OOOO, the applicant is registered as the representative director; the applicant has received the benefits from the OOOOOO in 2003 through 2006; in the case of the “statement” in the preparation of the OO submitted by the claimant, it is confirmed that the OO was working in the OOO, unlike the content of the statement that the OO was working in the OOOO, it is difficult to believe that the above “statement” is difficult, and the “written agreement and debt transfer confirmation” are merely written in the purport that the OO is acting as the representative director on behalf of the representative director on the corporate register, it is justifiable to impose the tax by deeming the applicant as the representative on the corporate register.
3. Hearing and determination
A. Key issue
(ju)whether the claimant is a representative director in the form of an OOOO
(b) Related statutes;
(1) Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes (Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes) (1) If the ownership of income, profit, property, act or transaction subject to taxation is merely nominal and there is another person to whom it actually belongs, the person to whom it actually belongs
(2) Article 20 of the Income Tax Act Section 1 of earned income shall be the following income generated during the year:
1. Class A:
(c) The amount treated as a bonus under the Corporate Tax Act;
(3) In filing a report on the corporate tax base on the income for each business year pursuant to Article 60 of the Corporate Tax Act or determining or revising the corporate tax base pursuant to Article 66 or 69, the amount included in gross income shall be disposed of as bonus, dividend, other outflow from the company, internal reserve, etc. to the person to whom it belongs as prescribed by Presidential Decree.
(4) Article 106 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (Income Disposition) ① The amount included in the gross income pursuant to Article 67 of the Act shall be disposed of in accordance with the following provisions. This provision shall also apply to non-profit domestic corporations
1. Where the amount included in the calculation of earnings has clearly leaked out of the company, the dividends, bonuses from the disposition of profits, other income, and other outflow from the company under the following items according to the person to whom they accrue: Provided, That where the accrual is unclear, it shall be deemed that they have been reverted to the representative:
(b) If the person to whom it belongs is an officer or employee, the bonus to the person to whom it reverts;
C. Facts and determination
(1) As shown below, the agency has been registered as the representative director of (ju)OOOO, and received benefits from (ju)OOOOO for the period between 2003 and 2006. In particular, in the case of “statements” in the preparation of KimO, unlike the contents of the evidence submitted by the claimant, in comparison with the contents of the evidence submitted by the claimant, KimO was confirmed as not the (ju)OOOOOOOOOOOOO in 2003 and 2004, and it is difficult to believe that it has received wage and salary from the OOO director (】 x x x x x x x x x x x x x ). The agency's disposition is justified in terms of the fact that it is difficult to view the representative as the representative director on behalf of the claimant for the "written agreement and debt transfer confirmation document, etc., but it is also difficult to view the representative as the representative, as the result of the investigation of the representative director's forgery.
(State)The particulars of the certified transcript of register of any OOOO which are paid to the claimant by (State)OOOOOOO.
(2) The claimant against this is registered as the representative director of (ju) OO development, who is the other party to the transaction after March 19, 2004 through June 11, 2006 by the claimant in the corporate register, but (ju)OOOO and (ju)O development for the period of March 2004 through February 4, 2006, the actual representative of (ju)OOOOO and (ju)O development shall be UOO(the corporate registry shall be the director of (ju)OOOOO, (ju), the auditor of (ju)OO development). The above UO has the corporate sense and the corporate passbook and all business of the corporation. The claimant is merely registered as the representative director of (ju)OOO in the form of representative of the other party to the transaction after OOOO's request, and the main issue of the purchase tax invoice is that it is confirmed that it is the real representative's employee's own evidence that it was submitted by the claimant for the following reasons.
(A) The "statement" prepared on November 16, 2008 by KimO was "I will work as a "OO integrated construction (former (former) OOOOOO)". At the time of 2005, OO integrated construction and OO development was dealt with by the head of the OO. At the time of 2005, I used the office as one, and the head of the OO integrated construction and OO development was in charge of approval of all deposits and withdrawals as the actual operators of OO comprehensive construction and O development. At that time, IOO integrated construction used the office of the head of the office, and only used the work related to the design of the building, and provided that there was no obvious permanent domicile related to O integrated construction. At that time, IOO integrated construction and O development was stated "OO" as the chairperson's motive for performing construction works."
(B) As of February 27, 2006 between the claimant and the UO, “a letter of agreement and a certificate of debt transfer” states that “1. O integrated construction (ju) takes place as agent while moving the head office in 2003, and taxes and other parts arising after the date of 2003 shall be paid by OO (applicant). Until April 28, 2006, taxes and other parts arising therefrom shall be solely responsible and payable by OO (Appellant) at the same time, and the liability due to the agent shall not be paid by O. 5. O.O. The UO. shall be responsible and constructed for the defective parts arising from the relevant construction work, and if the applicant fails to perform this, all of the duties for O comprehensive construction from February 28, 2006 to 200, the term “O.206,” respectively, stated that the period of performance guarantee for 2000 U.O.27.27.206.
(C) The claimant asserted that the OO was acting as the actual representative director and approved the approval, and submitted (main) OOO’s “internal resolution documents”, the private person of the OO’s website, and each “construction contract documents”.
(D) On February 19, 2009, the claimant filed a complaint with the OOOOOOO on the charge of forging and utteringing private documents (OOOOOO). On May 29, 2009, the prosecutor made a decision of non-prosecution (not guilty). The "written decision of non-prosecution" in the "written decision of prosecution" means that the OO only lent its name to operate the corporation, and that the OO made an objection with respect to the imposition of taxes on which the OO reported the tax invoice under the name of the complainant, and the O was delegated with all the authority of the complainant, and affixed a seal on various construction contracts, etc., and the OO was deemed to have prepared a tax invoice under the name of the representative director at the time and submitted it to the tax office, and the O was delegated with the authority of the complainant and affixed his/her authority on various documents and affixed his/her seal to the criminal suspect.
(e) It is the name of the claimant for the investigation records of the prosecution (O.S.) that "O.O is listed in the name of the (O.S.) representative director," and the actual operator is the O.O. It is issued seven copies of the tax invoice under the name of the complainant and submitted it to the tax office for the use of the three items. The complainant merely lent its name without the attendance of the office, but the O was prepared and submitted to the tax office."O's statement (O.S.) stated that "O.O. will be responsible for the construction of the office under the name of this owner.O.O.'s name. It is also the owner's duty to prepare and use the 203 books.O.O.'s instructions for the operation of the office. It is also the owner's duty to do so.O's duty to do so.O.'s duty to make it under the name of the head of the office.
(F) On the other hand, with regard to the opinion of the disposition agency that it is difficult for the claimant to believe that he/she made a false statement on his/her work place since April 2003, KimO's initial statement was made by mistake, and KimO was actually paid for cash payment from April 2004 to 2006, and in particular, KimO was working in the "OOO's" located in the "OOO's office" located in the "OO's office before April 2004, but no fact was found in the "OO's office" located in the "OO's office" located in the "OO's office after April 204, 204, and it was submitted as evidentiary documents, such document was prepared by KimO's certificate, KimO's certificate of retirement (the "OO's certificate, the certificate of confirmation of 209, the certificate of 207O's confirmation (the "O09.88).
(3) On the basis of the above facts, the claimant asserts that he is only the representative of (main) OOOO in the form of (main)OOO, but it is reasonable to view the representative on the registration as the representative of the legal entity except where it is proved by objective evidence or court's decision that he is not the representative of the legal entity. In the second period of 2005, the claimant is registered as the representative on the corporate register (main)OOOOOOO's representative on the corporate register. The claimant's payment of the wages from (main)OOOOO's office during the period from 2003 to 206 is difficult to view that the claimant is unrelated to the (main)OOO's initial disposition. In light of the fact that the claimant's agreement between the claimant and the UOO is merely the claimant's agent's delegation of authority and that it is difficult for the OOOO's representative on behalf of the claimant, but it is difficult for the 40th anniversary of the fact that there is any disagreement's's's lack of duty.
This case shall be decided as ordered in accordance with the provisions of Articles 81 and 65 (1) 2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, because the petition for a trial has no merit as a result of the trial.