The amount of special bonus paid to the employees by the investigative agency shall be reasonable, and the special bonus paid to the employees shall be lawful.

The investigating authority stated the amount of income twice and did not impose taxes, and excluded the amount of the refund of the fee for the case from the amount of income, and the special bonus of the employees whose expenses are unclear, is legitimate.

Article 80 (Determination and Correction)

2010Guhap5047 and revocation of disposition to impose income tax

1. WhiteA 2. Korea-B

1. The director of the competent tax office; and

May 20, 2014

July 1, 2014

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Cheong-gu Office

"The imposition of each disposition listed in the separate sheet No. 1, No. 2, and No. 3 as stated in the separate sheet No. 2, No. 1, and No. 2, and No. 3 as stated in the separate sheet No. 2, which was made by the head of the Defendant's Government Tax Office against Plaintiff Ba on April 14, 2010, and each disposition of each disposition listed in the separate sheet No. 2, No. 4, and No. 5 as stated in the separate sheet No. 2, against Plaintiff B by the head of the Seongbuk Tax Office on April 12, 2010, shall be revoked (the date of each disposition of each subparagraph No. 4. 5, No. 2010, Apr. 14, 2010, which is the date of each disposition of each subparagraph stated in the separate sheet No. 4, No. 2,

1. Details of the disposition;

"A. The plaintiffs are attorneys-at-law." From February 5, 2006, the plaintiff 00 to 100, the plaintiff 100 to 2008 operated the attorney-at-law business under the trade name "the 0AB office". The plaintiff 200 to 2009 to 200 to 200 to 200 to 200 to 300 to 200 to 200 to 200 to 200 to 40 to 200 to 200 to 40 to 200 to 40 to 200 to 200 to 40 to 200 to 200 to 200 to 200 to 200 to 40 to 200 to 40 to 20 to 40 to 0 to 200 to 0 to 0 to 200 to 0 to 00 to 200 to 00 to O to 20 to be imposed on 200.

D. Accordingly, on April 14, 2010, the head of the Defendant’s Government Tax Office imposed value-added tax and global income tax on Plaintiff 0A on the Plaintiff 1’s Schedule, and on the same day, imposed value-added tax on the Plaintiff 1B as indicated in attached Tables 1, 2, and 3. In addition, on April 12, 2010, the head of the Sungbuk Tax Office imposed a disposition imposing global income tax on Plaintiff 1B on the Plaintiff 2 as listed in attached Tables 4 and 5 (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant disposition”). The Plaintiffs asserted against the instant disposition and filed a request for review with the National Tax Service on September 10, 201 and September 28, 2010.

Facts that there is no dispute for recognition, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2 Eul evidence 1 to 8 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

(1) Calculation error of the omission in sales

On December 28, 2006, the Defendants were released on the same day and returned to the borrowed account (CC bank, account numberO-O-O-O-OOOOOOOOOOO) in the name of KimD on December 28, 2006. On August 31, 2007, OOOOOO-O-O-OOOOOOOOOOOOOO-OOOOOOOOO-OOOOOOO-OOOO-OOOOOO-OOOO-OOOO-OOOOOO-OOO-OOOO-OOO-OOO-OOO-OOO-OOO-OO-OO-OO-O that was deposited in the name of the Plaintiff on the same day, and the Defendants should be excluded from the sales of the said O-O-O-O-O-O-O that was separated from each of the above facts.

(B) The Defendants compared the Plaintiffs’ business account and the details of the withdrawal of the borrowed name account, and the amount deposited later by re-deposited later is deemed to be a total of OOO won, and excluded the above amount from sales. In fact, the amount deposited in the business account and the borrowed name account is a total of OO won, and thus, OOO which is equivalent to the difference between each of the above amounts should be excluded from sales.

The Plaintiffs caused a loss, as indicated in the table below, returned to the clients the total amount of fees paid by the clients, such as SongF, etc., but the Defendants merely followed such circumstances and deemed the total amount of the fees to be sold, and thus, the disposition of this case was taken. The returned OO members should be excluded from sales.

No.

A client;

Amount to be returned (won)

Date of Return

No.

A client;

Amount to be returned (won)

Date of Return

1

FF

OOO

November 2008

7

KL

OOO

May 8, 2007

2

LGG

OOO

August 18, 2006

8

MM

OOO

May 11, 2007

3

H Kim H

OOO

December 21, 2006

9

NN

OOO

August 21, 2007

4

Schedule II

OOO

January 2, 2007

10

OOO

August 31, 2007

5

J MaximumJ

OOO

April 4, 2007

11

Yellow PPP

OOO

may 2, 2008

6

EK

OOO

April 24, 2007

Total amount of return OOO

The Plaintiffs, while operating a law office, disbursed the total amount of OOO as stated in the following sub-paragraph, and paid the employees a special bonus as specified in the sub-paragraph below. However, the Defendants recognized only the amount reported as expenses at the time of filing the global income tax return (OOO) and the amount recognized as additional expenses (OOO won) in the course of the tax investigation of the mid-to-mid regional tax office that was conducted later, the remaining OO won that was not recognized as expenses should be deemed as additional expenses and the global income tax should be calculated.

(1) Operating expenses of the legal office: A total of OOO

OO won in 2006 (the amount stated in the cash receipt and payment book + OOO won in the additionally discovered credit card use amount) , 2007 (=OOO won in the amount stated in the cash receipt and payment book + additionally discovered credit card use amount) , OOO won in 2008 (=the amount stated in the cash receipt and payment book + OOO won in the additionally discovered credit card use amount + additionally discovered credit card use amount + OOO won in the additionally discovered credit card use amount)

(B) Special bonus for employees: A total of OOO

직원 이QQ에게 2006년 6월부터 2007년 6월까지 지급한 특별상여금 합계 OOOO원, 직원 이RR에게 2006년 10월부터 2008년 12월까지 지급한 특별상여금 합계 OOOO원, 직원 최SS에게 2007년 1월부터 2008년 9월까지 지급한 특별상여금 합계 OOOO원, 직원 정TT에게 2008년 4월부터 2008년 12월까지 지급한 특별상여금 합계 OOOO원

B. Determination

1) Determination as to the assertion of error in calculation of the omitted amount

A) Determination as to the ground for appeal

In full view of the purport of the entire arguments in Eul evidence Nos. 3, 7, and 8, it is recognized that the amount already deposited in the process of the tax investigation of the Jungbu District Tax Office, which the plaintiffs asserted that the amount was doublely recognized as sales, was not doublely calculated as sales. Thus, the plaintiffs' assertion on this part is without merit, which is premised on the premise that the defendants recognized the amount as duplicate sales and made the disposition of this case.

B) Determination on the argument of the Sub-Section

Although the plaintiffs claim that the amount deposited in the business account and the borrowed name account is in fact an OOO, there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and it is judged that the time and amount of deposit of the plaintiffs' business account and the borrowed name account are similar to each other in the course of the tax investigation conducted by the Jungbu Regional Tax Office, and there is no evidence to deem that there is a overlapping amount other than the OOO won recognized as a duplicate amount. Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

C) Determination as to the assertion on causes of accidents

Although the plaintiffs asserted that the sum of the fees paid by the clients was returned to the OOO, the plaintiffs did not submit the delegation contract, receipts, and the details of the deposit and withdrawal, and there is no other evidence to support them. Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

2) Determination as to the assertion of error in calculating expenses

The plaintiffs submitted the cash receipts and disbursements, receipts and disbursements, etc., alleging that they paid the sum of the operating expenses of the actual legal office. However, in light of the timing of preparation and the process of preparation, etc., it is difficult to conclude that the plaintiffs requested the tax accounting office to conduct a tax investigation, and the contents of the cash receipts and disbursements and receipts are difficult to believe the contents thereof as they are, and that the expenses are spent in connection with the operation of the legal office. Therefore, it is insufficient to recognize the plaintiffs' claims by only the items of evidence Nos. 5 through 33 (including each number) of the cash receipts and disbursements and receipts, and there is no other evidence to support that the expenses other than the amount

In addition, the plaintiffs asserted that they paid the total amount of OOO to employees as special bonuses, but it is not sufficient to recognize the above only with Gap evidence No. 34-1 through No. 4, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims of this case are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.