If the taxpayer proves through the existence of the borrowed account actually used for management, the taxpayer has the burden of proof.

The plaintiff's representative is not allowed to submit accounting books, and the plaintiff's representative may not be deemed to have failed to report the sales of the money deposited in the borrowed account at the time of the tax investigation.

Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act

Cheongju District Court 2014Guhap613

O

O Head of tax office

. 17, 2015

October 29, 2015

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company established for the purpose of the recycling of plastics and raw materials and wholesale and retail business, and has produced and sold vinyl or plastic raw materials (PE or PVC products; hereinafter referred to as “rerelicing products”) by recycling plastic wastes after its incorporation.

B. The Plaintiff sold renewable products and received the payment from the Plaintiff’s account (OOO of the O bank) and from the Plaintiff’s OO bank account in the name of the Plaintiff, and from the OO bank account in the name of the least BB bank (hereinafter “O bank account”) and accordingly, issued a tax invoice and reported the value-added tax return for each taxable period and the corporate tax for each business year from the O to the OO.

C. As a result of conducting an integrated corporate tax investigation of the Plaintiff from O.O.O. to O.O.O.O.O.O.O., it confirmed that the Plaintiff omitted the sales of the OO.S. deposited in the borrowed account from O to O.O.

D. After being notified by the director of the regional tax office of the above results of the investigation, the defendant notified the plaintiff of the correction and notification of the total value-added tax amount of the O.O.O.O.O.O. for the period of O.O.O. for the period of O.O. for the time of O.O. for O. for the period of O.O. for the time of O.O., the defendant disposed of the amount of money, the representative director of the plaintiff, as bonus for the GangnamCC, and notified the change

O. O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O to O.O., the imposition of the total amount of the earned income tax for the source was made.

E. On this issue, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Director of the Tax Tribunal of O.O.O.O., claiming that part of the deposit amount of the borrowed account should be excluded from omitting sales because it was deposited regardless of sales, and the Director of the Tax Tribunal determined to re-examine whether the deposit amount received through the borrowed account was omitted sales and to correct the tax base and tax amount according to the result.

D. The director of the regional tax office notified the plaintiff of the results of reinvestigation that the amount of value-added tax, corporate tax, and disposal of income should be reduced according to the decision of the Director of the Tax Tribunal. The defendant notified the director of the regional tax office of O.O.O.O.O. of the results of reinvestigation as above, and notified the director of the regional tax office of O.O.O.O. of the results of reinvestigation to the plaintiff, and issued a decision of correction of value-added tax, etc., such as value-added tax, as stated in the separate disposition list No. 1 (hereinafter "each disposition of this case on the date of original

[Ground of Recognition] A without dispute, Gap 1 through 53, 56 through 105, 108, 117 through 119, 121 through 131, Eul 1 through 5, 8 through 9, 11

Each entry, including lot number, hereinafter the same shall apply), the whole purport of the pleading

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The reason why the Plaintiff used the borrowed-name account for trading is because the trading volume with so-called "Bada, which is the intermediary merchant for registration, has increased due to the characteristics of the recycling industry, and there were circumstances where it is difficult for the Plaintiff to settle the transaction price with the passbook as the Plaintiff’s corporate passbook or to keep accounts due to the lack of the issuance of the tax invoice. However, the Plaintiff did not omit the sales, and the Plaintiff filed a tax invoice by issuing the following tax invoice. The prosecutor also issued a non-prosecution disposition as to the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act in relation to the evasion of tax evasion by the Plaintiff’s representative director. Nevertheless, the Defendant issued a non-prosecution disposition as to the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act in relation to the tax evasion by the GangwonCC, which is the Plaintiff’s representative director. Nevertheless, each disposition of the instant case is unlawful and revoked.

1) The Plaintiff received the sales proceeds of recycled products from the OO to the OO’s account, and reported the sales proceeds of the corporation by adding all the sales proceeds deposited into the corporate account and the borrowed name account as follows.

① In the case of the year 2002, 2003, and 2007, the Plaintiff reported the sale by issuing a tax invoice in an amount larger than the aggregate of the amount deposited in the corporate passbook and the amount deposited in the borrowed account, and the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have omitted the sale.

② In the case of the year 2004, 2005, and 2006, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice in an amount less than the aggregate of the amount deposited in the corporate passbook and the amount deposited in the borrowed account, and declared for sale. However, the difference (an amount not reported by the Plaintiff as the sale) is an amount borrowed from time to time due to the Plaintiff’s financial difficulties, and thus, it cannot be said that the Plaintiff omitted sales.

2) From 2008 to 2012, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice equivalent to the amount deposited in the corporate account and filed a return for sales. This is because the Plaintiff issued a false tax invoice in consultation with the final buyer who could issue the tax invoice and the final buyer deposited the amount into the corporate account, and the Plaintiff made transactions in the form of returning the said amount to the said final buyer. Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have omitted sales equivalent to the amount deposited in the borrowed account during the pertinent period.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form 2 shall be as shown in attached Table 2.

C. Relevant legal principles

과세관청이 납세의무자에 대한 세무조사를 근거로 그 납세의무자가 당초 법인세 등의 신고 시에 누락한 매출액이 있음을 이유로 법인세 등의 부과처분을 하는 경우에 있어서 그와 같이 누락한 익금의 존재와 액수 등에 대해서는 과세관청이 증명책임을 부담하지만, 과세관청이 납세의무자가 기록하여 갖추고 있는 장부에 제대로 계상되어 있지 아니한 매출 누락액의 존재를 납세의무자가 실제 관리�사용하는 차명계좌의 존재를 통하여 입증한 경우에는 그 입증의 난이와 당사자 사이의 형평을 고려할 때, 그 매출 누락액이 위와 같은 차명계좌에 입금된 당해 사업연도에 귀속되는 익금이나 매출액이 아니라는 점을 납세의무자가 입증하지 못하는 이상, 일응 그 금액을 위 차명계좌에 입금된 사업연도의 익금 등에 해당하는 것으로 추정하여 이를 해당 사업연도의 익금 등에 포함한 것은 원칙적으로 타당하다고 할 것이다(대법원 2003. 7. 25. 선고 2002두5542 판결 참조).

D. Determination

1) Measures concerning the omission of sales in 202, 2003, and 2007 among each of the dispositions in the instant case

A) In light of the overall purport of the pleadings on the statements in Evidence No. 108-1, 2, 6, and 117-1, 2, 6, 118, 121, 122, and 126, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice for the year 2002 and filed a tax invoice for the year 2002, and filed a tax invoice for the year 2002. The amount deposited in the Plaintiff’s corporate passbook for the year 2003 is the total amount of O0 won, and the amount deposited in the borrowed account is the total amount of O0 won, and the amount deposited in the Plaintiff’s corporate passbook for the year 203 is the total amount of 200 won, and the amount deposited in the Plaintiff’s corporate passbook for the year 2003 is the total amount of O0 won, and the amount deposited in the borrowed account is O20 won more than the total amount of O20 won, the Plaintiff’s total amount of O more than 2000 won.

B) In addition, the above facts are acknowledged, inasmuch as the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice in an amount higher than the sum of the amount deposited in the Plaintiff’s corporate account and the amount deposited in the borrowed account and reported it as sales, even if the Plaintiff was found to have received a partial payment of the sales proceeds of recycled products in a borrowed-name account other than a corporate account, it cannot be readily concluded that the Plaintiff failed to pay the total amount of the borrowed-name account. ② In order to make the Plaintiff omitted sales, the Plaintiff should have acknowledged that there was a tax invoice issued to the Plaintiff. There is sufficient possibility that the Plaintiff paid the cash that the Plaintiff received from the customer to the borrowed-name account. However, there is insufficient possibility that the Plaintiff paid the cash to the borrowed-name account, and ③ there was a difference between the actual transaction office and the company issuing the tax invoice, which is considered to reflect the unique nature of the business distribution structure, and the Plaintiff also recognized the issuance of the false tax invoice, apart from the fact that the Plaintiff issued the false tax invoice, the Plaintiff could not be deemed to have failed to prove the total amount of sales.

C) Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is with merit, and the part relating to omission of sales in the year 202, 2003, and 2007 among each of the dispositions of this case should be revoked in an unlawful manner.

2) Of the instant dispositions, the parts concerning the omission of sales in the year 2004, 2005, and 2006

A) In light of the overall purport of the pleadings in each statement in Evidence No. 108-3 through 5, Evidence No. 117-3 through 5, Evidence No. 117-5, Evidence No. 118, 119, 123 through 125, the amount deposited in the Plaintiff’s corporate passbook in 2004 shall be the total amount of OO, the amount deposited in the borrowed account shall be the total amount of OO, the amount deposited in the borrowed account shall be the total amount of OO, the Plaintiff issued the tax invoice for 2004, the amount deposited in the Plaintiff’s corporate passbook in 2005 shall be the total amount of OO, the amount deposited in the borrowed account shall be the total amount of OOO, the Plaintiff issued the tax invoice for 205, and the Plaintiff reported the sales in 206, and the amount deposited in the Plaintiff’s corporate account shall be the total amount of 200 won deposited in the O206.

B) In light of the above facts and the fact that the Plaintiff received sales proceeds from the borrowed account separately from the Plaintiff’s corporate account and did not keep the grounds for accounting while managing the sales proceeds from the borrowed account. The Plaintiff’s representative is also acknowledged as not making a report on sales proceeds from the borrowed account at the time of the instant tax investigation with the Plaintiff. In addition to the current current tax situation of Korea where there is a lot of frequent cases in which the borrowed account was used for tax evasion through the reduction of sales revenue, the amount equivalent to the difference (amount omitted sales) between the amount deposited in the Plaintiff’s corporate account and the amount deposited in the borrowed account was deducted by the Plaintiff’s tax invoice for the year 2004, 2005, and 206, and there is no sufficient evidence to acknowledge that there was an omission of sales equivalent to the amount deposited in the borrowed account as alleged by the Defendant. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s financial omission amount during each of the above disposition amounts to the extent of 206, as alleged by the Defendant.

C) However, the determination of legality of a disposition in a lawsuit seeking revocation of a tax disposition is based on whether it exceeds a legitimate tax amount. The parties concerned may submit arguments and materials supporting the objective tax base and tax amount until the closing of argument in the fact-finding court. When a legitimate tax amount to be imposed lawfully is calculated based on such data, only the portion exceeding the legitimate tax amount should be revoked. However, if the legitimate tax amount to be imposed lawfully is not so determined, the entire tax disposition shall not be revoked. In such a case, the court shall not be obliged to ex officio to identify a reasonable and reasonable and reasonable calculation method and to calculate a legitimate tax amount (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Nu13527, Apr. 28, 1995). Of the instant disposition, the parts related to the omission of sales in the year 204, 2005, and 2006 were unlawful, but the legitimate tax amount is not calculated based on the submitted data. Accordingly, the entire tax amount related to omission of sales in each of the instant dispositions shall be revoked.

3) Of each of the dispositions in this case, the omission of sales in the year 2008 through 2012

(4) According to the following circumstances, the Plaintiff’s disposal of Gap evidence 10-7 through 11, Gap evidence 117-7 through 11, Gap evidence 106, 118, 126 through 131, Eul evidence 5,8 through 10-10, and the Plaintiff’s disposal of this case’s account was not reported to the Plaintiff at the time of this case’s tax investigation. The Plaintiff’s disposal of this portion of this case’s account was not based solely on the facts that the Plaintiff failed to report the amount of money deposited to the Plaintiff at the time of this case’s tax investigation. The Plaintiff’s disposal of this portion of this case’s account was not based on the Plaintiff’s submission of the remaining amount of money deposited to the Plaintiff’s final account, and the Plaintiff’s disposal of this portion of this case’s account did not constitute an omission of the amount of money deposited to the Plaintiff’s final account, but it was difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff did not have any reasonable basis to return the amount of money deposited to the Plaintiff’s account.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.