Whether the provisional payment of this case was recovered or not

In the absence of evidentiary materials to prove the collection of the provisional payment of this case, the application for rectification of corporate tax through the revision of corporate financial statements is not possible.

Article 45-2 of the National Tax Basic Act

Daejeon District Court 2014Guhap101735

***

ㅁㅁ세무서장

The second instance decision

National Rotations

July 1, 2015

August 12, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The defendant's rejection disposition against the plaintiff on April 26, 2013 as to the claim for correction is revoked. The defendant's rejection disposition against the plaintiff is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 31, 2010, the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) reported the corporate tax base and tax amount on the income for the business year 2009 business year (hereinafter “instant return”) to KRW 70,554,003, respectively, and reported the calculated tax amount to KRW 7,760,940.

B. After that, the Plaintiff’s provisional payment of KRW 1,464,00,000 to the Defendant around March 22, 2013, and short-term loans.

Along with excessive appropriation of KRW 1,470,000,000, among the contents of the instant report by modifying financial statements.

The amount of income and the tax base are 44,776,266 won, the amount of tax calculated is 4,925,389 won, and the amount of tax calculated is 29,815,800 won, and the amount of income and the tax base are 3,279,738 won, and the amount of tax calculated is 29,80 won, and the amount of tax and the amount of tax are 3,279,738 won (hereinafter

C. On April 29, 2013, the Defendant confirmed the settlement of accounts through lawful procedures and filed a tax base return.

The plaintiff cannot make a request for correction, etc. by correcting the financial statements originally finalized.

The instant disposition rejecting each of the instant claims for correction was made.

D. On July 22, 2013, the Plaintiff dismissed the instant disposition by raising an objection to the Defendant.

After receipt of the judgment, on November 18, 2013, the Tax Tribunal filed an appeal and received a decision of dismissal on February 13, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 8 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Accounts in the absence of accounting staff due to the difficulties of normal operation in the business year 2009

In the course of performing duties using a program, incomplete data are entered and automatically entered;

The provisional payment of KRW 1,464,00,000 has been appropriated, but the said provisional payment is based on relevant data.

Although it is confirmed that long-term and short-term loans and accounts payable are used for the repayment, the instant disposition rejecting each of the instant requests for correction is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

(1) The former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 9911, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply)

Article 45-2 (Request for Correction, etc.)

(1) A person who has filed a tax base return within the statutory due date of return may request the head of the competent tax office to file an objection, request for examination or adjudgment within three years (referring to the period for filing an objection, request for adjudgment, or request for adjudgment where a determination or correction is made pursuant to each tax-related Act) after the statutory due date of return elapses for the determination or correction of the tax base and amount of the national tax (referring to the tax base and amount of tax after such determination

1. Where the tax base and tax amount entered in the tax base return (referred to the tax base and tax amount after such decision or correction is made, if such decision or correction is made under the provisions of each tax-related Act), exceed those to be returned under the tax-related Acts;

C. Facts of recognition

1) Each of the instant reports, requests for correction of each of the instant claims, and the process of pleadings in the instant case

Details, such as net profit and loss, tax adjustment, tax base, etc. claimed are as follows:

2) On December 31, 2009, the provisional payment paid to the representative director of the Plaintiff as of December 31, 2009, when the report of this case was filed.

According to the "a statement of recognition of interest on provisional payment, etc.(B)" attached, 764,00,000 won is 1,464,00,000 won according to the "a total of the balance sheet".

3) In addition, as of December 31, 2009, short-term loans are not stated in the "standard balance sheet" attached to the report of this case, but are stated in the "total sum sheet" as KRW 1,708,087,265, and the "total sum sheet" as KRW 1,470,000.

4) The total amount of sales claim stated by the Plaintiff at the time of the instant declaration is KRW 3,706,549,99. Of these, sales claim against the Maritime General Construction Corporation was appropriated in KRW 792,00,000, but the actual sales claim is KRW 82,00,000.

5) The Plaintiff: 12,844,981 won from the “Standard Income Statement attached to the instant declaration at the time of the instant declaration to cover interest costs.”

B. Upon making each of the instant claims for correction, the amount of 8,830,356 paid in the "statement of income amount by subject" was included in deductible expenses and the disposition of outflow from the company was taken.

6) On March 25, 2009, the Plaintiff repaid KRW 820,000,000 to B Mutual Savings Banks.

On April 28, 2009, Han Bank repaid 144,000,000 won of loans, and on December 30, 2009, it repaid 1,614,000,000 won of loans to the Exchange Savings Bank.

7) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff cannot engage in bank transactions through the deposit account at the time of 2009.

The transactions were dealt with in cash.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, 8, 9, 10 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) The burden of proof for rejecting a request for rectification

In a case where a taxpayer, who made a tax disposition, contests the legality of the taxation disposition, the tax authority is, in principle, liable to submit data supporting the legitimacy of the final tax base and amount of tax determined by the tax authority that made the disposition. On the contrary, in a case where the tax authority claims to correct the tax base and amount reported on the grounds that the reported tax base and amount of tax were erroneous in a tax return method, the liability to submit data supporting the erroneous filing of the initial tax base and amount of tax by the taxpayer shall be deemed to be the taxpayer requesting a correction of the amount of tax. This is because, in a case where the taxpayer reported the tax base and amount of tax in a tax return method, the taxpayer himself/herself reports the tax base and amount of tax on the basis of the data he/she has secured, and thus, the taxpayer should submit data supporting the tax base and amount of tax reported to the

Therefore, a taxpayer who requests reduction or correction pursuant to Article 45-2(1)1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes shall assert and prove that the tax base and amount of tax recorded in the return of tax base exceeds the tax base and amount to be reported under the tax-related Acts, and that the taxpayer is a legitimate claimant under the aforementioned provisions, and that the tax base and amount of tax seeking reduction are legitimate.

2) Whether the plaintiff can prove the reason for filing a claim for correction

The following circumstances revealed from the above facts, i.e., the net income, inclusion of earnings and losses, tax base, calculated tax amount, etc. claimed by the Plaintiff at the time of the instant declaration:

When filing a request for correction, and in the proceedings of this case, the difference is not consistent, 2. The plaintiff

The documents accompanying the report of this case also do not coincide with the amount of provisional payment or short-term loans.

of the 2009 year in which the total amount of sales is entered differently from the actual amount of sales

(3) The plaintiff shall file a request for correction of each of the claims in this case and make a provisional payment without office.

under the premise of the existence of the amount, part of the interest cost appears to have been treated as non-deductible expenses; and

The total amount of the loans alleged to have been repaid with high value is used in the repayment of the loan;

Along with the total amount of provisional payments, the plaintiff is given a statement about the difference in such amount.

(5) The plaintiff was engaged in cash transactions at the time of the business year 2009 and Ga

There is no objective basis for the repayment of the amount or the repayment of the loan.

In full view of the facts, it is difficult to view that the data submitted by the Plaintiff alone used the provisional payment to repay the Plaintiff’s long-term and short-term loans and accounts payable, and there is no other evidence to recognize that the tax base and tax amount initially reported by the Plaintiff exceeded the tax base and tax amount to be reported under the tax law. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s request for correction of each of the instant claims is groundless,

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so ordered as per Disposition.

shall be ruled.