Whether necessary expenses to cope with omission of sales are recognized

There is no account book or other documentary evidence that the purchase cost of the original purchase corresponding to the omission of sale has been separately paid, and the purchase party presented by the plaintiff did not recognize additional necessary expenses because it is not reliable due to data.

Article 27 of the Income Tax Act shall calculate necessary expenses.

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Imposition of global income tax;

Evidence No. 1, No. 1, No. 2, each entry of Evidence No. 1 and No. 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

A. In filing a return on the tax base and tax amount of global income tax for the year 2001, the Plaintiff, a self-denunciation manufacturer, reported the total amount of revenue to KRW 2,921,080,851, and the sales cost of business income to KRW 2,757,885,902.

B. On December 2003, the head of the ○○ Tax Office confirmed that the Plaintiff, during the second period of 2001, sold textile products (self-denunciation) equivalent to KRW 98,610,00 ( KRW 56,595,000 on October 9, 2001 + KRW 42,015,00 on December 5, 2001, issued the tax data to the Defendant, and notified the Defendant of the taxation data.

C. Accordingly, on May 13, 2004, the Defendant deemed that the sales of the above self-denunciationed goods sold by the Plaintiff to ○ trade was omitted by the notified taxation data, and issued the instant disposition imposing the Plaintiff’s global income tax of KRW 56,686,550 in addition to the total sales amount.

D. The plaintiff was dissatisfied with the disposition of this case and requested to the National Tax Tribunal on October 11, 2004, but the National Tax Tribunal dismissed the plaintiff's request on April 15, 2005.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The party's assertion

The Defendant asserted that the instant disposition was lawful on the grounds of relevant laws and regulations and the above disposition. The Plaintiff filed an omitted return on the sales revenue of ○○ Trade 98,610,000 won from the business income. However, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was liable to pay the total amount of income calculated by deducting the amount of income from the total amount of 91,580,000 won, including the total amount of 98,610,000 won from the total amount of ○○○○○○○ (representative ○○○) in response to the omission of the above sales from the total amount of ○○○○○ (representative ○○) in response to the omission of the sales, as necessary expenses, even if the amount was calculated by deducting the amount of income from the total amount of income.

(b) Related statutes;

○ Calculation of necessary expenses under Article 27 of the Income Tax Act and see Article 55 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act

(c) Fact of recognition;

Evidence Nos. 2-1 to 4, 3-1 to 7, 4-1 to 4, 5-2, Eul evidence Nos. 7-1, 7-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

(1) On July 23, 2001, ○○○ registered the type of business as a textile wholesale business, and registered the trade name as ○○○ (○○○○). In fact, it is a material that issues a false tax invoice without a real transaction and receives a price.

(2) The details of the transaction with the Plaintiff’s ○○○○○ (representative’s ○○○) document, deposit slip, and the Plaintiff’s ○ bank passbook are written as indicated below.

(unit:,000 won)

Schedule of Trading

Deposit List

○ Bank Account Withdrawal

Date of Transaction

Amount

Date of Transaction

Amount

Date of Transaction

Amount

addressee

August 27, 2001

29,830

September 5, 2001

9,000

September 5, 2001

9,000

Park ○

September 10, 200

22,800

“”

8,000

“”

8,000

“”

October 17, 2001

28,500

September 20, 2001

18,000

September 20, 2001

18,000

“”

December 25, 2001

10,450

December 1, 2001

19,250

December 17, 2001

19,250

The addressee whose identity is unknown

January 31, 2002

12,500

February 27, 2002

13,000

March 5, 2002

11,350

5, 2002

11,350

○ ○○ Other

guidance.

91,580

guidance.

91,100

guidance.

65,600

D. Determination

(1) If the competent tax office determines by a field investigation the total necessary expenses corresponding to the gross income amount of the taxpayer in the corresponding year and finds the income omitted from the initial return, the necessary expenses corresponding thereto shall be deemed to have already been included in the total necessary expenses corresponding to the gross income amount unless there are special circumstances, such as account books or other documentary evidence revealed that it was separately disbursed. In such a case, only the necessary expenses corresponding to the omission of income which is only a part of the gross income amount cannot be separately determined by the method of estimated investigation. If the taxpayer wants to receive a tax credit on the ground that there is an omission of the purchase cost corresponding to the omission of sales, he/she must prove the omission of the purchase cost by Switzerland (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Nu42, Dec. 11, 1990; 90Nu10189, Jul. 12, 191).

(2)원고가 이 사건 매출누락에 대응하는 섬유원단 매입비용으로 ○○타일에 합계 91,580,000원을 지출하였음에 부합하는 갑 제5호증의 1, 제10호증의 각 기재와 제1 심 증인 엄○○의 증언은, ①엄○○이 실물거래 없이 허위의 세금계산서를 발행하고 대가를 받는 속칭 자료상인 점, ② 제1심 증인 엄○○은 원고가 섬유원단을 구입할 때 이에 대한 부가가치세를 지급하였다고 진술하고 있는데, 원고가 부가가치세를 지 급하였다면 원고는 ○○타일로부터 세금계산서를 교부받고 ○○무역에게는 원고의 세금계산서를 발행하여 주는 것이 상거래관행에 부합함에도 합리적인 이유 없이 ○ ○타일의 세금계산서를 ○○무역에 교부하였을 리 없는 점, ③ ○○무역에 대한 매 출이 98,610,000원이고 원고가 주장하는 매입액이 91,580,000원이어서 원고가 매출 을 누락하였다 하더라도 매입까지 누락할 경우 원고가 매출을 누락하여 얻을 수 있 는 이익이 거의 없는 점, ④원고가 2001. 1기 박○○가 운영하는 주식회사 ○○타 일로부터 101,970,000원 상당의 매입세금계산서를 교부받은 사실이 있는데(을 제 4,5호증의 각 기재), 원고가 박○○에게 송금한 2001. 9. 5. 17,000,000원과 2001. 9. 20. 18,000,000원은 위 매입대금 101,970,000원의 일부일 가능성이 있는 점, ⑤ 제1심 증인 엄○○은 2001. 12. 17. 19,250,000원과 2002. 1. 31. 12,500,000원 및 2002. 2. 27. 13,000,000원은 현금과 가계수표로 받았다고 진술하고 있으나, 원고가 ○○은행 계좌로 엄○○에게 송금할 수 있음에도 위 돈만 현금이나 수표로 지 급하였다는 것이 경험칙상 납득하기 어려울 뿐만 아니라 가계수표에 관한 증거도 제 출하지 못하고 있으며, 원고의 ○○은행 계좌상으로는 2001. 12. 17.자 인출금의 수 취인이 불분명한 것으로 나타나는 점, ⑥원고가 2002. 3. 5. ○○타일에 송금한 돈 은 허위의 세금계산서를 교부받은 것에 대한 대가일 가능성도 있는 점, ⑦거래명세 표가 제대로 작성된 것이라면 원고는 ○○타일로부터 2001. 10. 17.과 2001. 12. 25. 합계 38,950,000원 어치의 원단을 공급받아 그 이전인 2001. 12. 5. ○○무역 에게 42,015,000원 어치의 자수직물을 납품한 것이 되어 시기적으로 모순되는 점, ⑧○○타일이 작성한 거래명세표와 입금표 작성일자가 서로 일치하지 아니할 뿐만 아니라 입금표의 금액과 거래명세표의 금액이 서로 부합하지 않는 점, ⑨ 원고가 사 업소득 매출액을 2,914,524,902원으로, 소득금액을 62,143,380원으로 신고하여 소 득률이 2.1%이어서 매출액의 97.9%가 필요경비에 해당하는 데, 위 97.9%는 원고와 같은 제조 자수직물의 단순경비율인 94.9%보다 3%나 높은 수치여서 원고가 통상의 납세자보다 더 많은 경비를 기장하여 신고하였음을 알 수 있고, 위 3%를 환산하면 87,435,747원이 되어 이사건 매출누락액에 근접하는 점(갑 제9호증, 을 제6호증의 각 기재), ⑩원고와 같은 업종의 순수한 상품 매입원가의 비율은 55.43%이어서 누 락 매출액 98,610,000원의 55.43%인 54,659,523원 정도가 원단비용으로 지출됨이 정상임에도 원고가 매입비용으로 주장하는 91,580,000원은 정상가보다 현저히 고액 이어서 이례적인 점 등에 비추어 믿기 어렵고, 위와 같은 사정에 비추어 갑 제2호증 의 1내지 4, 제3호증의 1내지7, 제4호증의 1내지4, 제11호증의 각 기재와 이 법원 의 세무사 ○○○에 대한 사실조회 결과만으로는 원고가 이 사건 매출누락에 대응하 는 섬유원단 매입비용으로 ○○타일에 합계 91,580,000원을 지출하였음을 인정하기 부족하며, 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없다.

(3) As above, unless there is account books or other evidence to prove that the cost of the original purchase corresponding to the omission of the sales of this case has been separately disbursed, the cost of the original purchase shall be deemed to have already been included in the total sales cost (2,757,885,902) in proportion to the total sales cost. Therefore, only the necessary expenses corresponding to the omission of the sales of this case, which is only a part of the total total sales amount, shall not be separately determined by the method of estimation.

(4)Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just and it is so decided as per Disposition.