National Trial 1989 Swiss0945 (Law No. 30, 1989)
The limit of the amount deemed to have been out of the company due to the provisional payment by the representative shall be the difference between the publication of the books extracted in the investigation and the material in actual possession.
88.16 of the Namsan District Tax Office's 88.12.16 of the corporate tax "(1-86.3.31 of the business year of April 1-86) 19,595,680 of the corporate tax, 2,718,860 of the defense tax (2,718,860 of the business year of March 31, 86.1-87.31) 3,531,030 of the corporate tax, 5,211,390 of the defense tax, 87.1-8.31 of the business year of March 31, 87.4.1-8.31 of the same year) 40,950,290 of the corporate tax, 7,874,420 of the same defense tax amount, 329,268,487.36,87.386,7.486,786,7.67.7
The requesting corporation shall confirm that the cash amount on the date of the request corporation is KRW 14,97 on the date when the corporate tax is investigated for three business years between 85.4.1-8.31 and 85.24 of the requesting corporation, and that the disposal agency shall calculate the amount of the cash amount on the date of the request corporation, after subtracting the deposit amount of KRW 144,97 from the cash and deposit amount at the end of each period for settlement of accounts, the representative director shall regard the cash amount of KRW 14,97 and the deposit amount of KRW 188.16, 88, 88, 198, 208, 19, 595, 680, 2, 718, 718, 86, 306, 314, 305, 387, 3085, 304, 487, 3197, 405, 3197, 407.313138
The claimant corporation, which is dissatisfied with this request, has reached an appeal for this case on April 10, 89.
The disposition agency shall regard the amount calculated by subtracting 14,97 won as the provisional payment by the representative director at the end of the settlement term of 3 years of cash and the balance of deposits (the amount surveyed October 24, 88), the total amount of which is 140,000 won for 20 years of the settlement term of accounts, and calculated as the same amount within the business year, and the disposition agency imposed income tax on the same amount as the annual income within the business year. However, as of the date of the investigation, the cash fact-finding conducted by the disposition agency as of the date of the investigation is an erroneous investigation, and the balance of the cash of the requesting company and the account books was 431,047,264 won for 30 years of the settlement term (the verified amount is 14,97 won, 52,445 won for the current account, 14,619, 1800 won for 30 years of the settlement of accounts, but it is reasonable to recognize the amount of 80.18 years of the receipts and 22.214.171.124.
3. Opinions of the Commissioner of the National Tax Service;
First of all, although the applicant corporation has kept and preserved a separate safe in the office, it was erroneous in deeming only KRW 144,997 as the current amount of cash stock, but there was no specific evidence (e.g., ledger of non-refit, etc.) that a separate safe had been kept, and the applicant corporation confirmed that the cash stock amount was KRW 144,97 in the investigation of the current amount of stock stock. Thus, there is no assertion that there was a separate safe, and there is no specific statement about the cash amount stored in a separate safe, and there is no reason to acknowledge it.
Next, the assertion that there was an error in calculating the interest rate for provisional payments, or 144,997 won in cash market amount in the claim corporation's ordinary amount at the end of each fiscal year of the claim corporation, and that the amount calculated by deducting the amount of regular payments, fixed deposits, deposits, and deposits in each cash and balance of each claim corporation from the cash and balance of deposits at the end of each fiscal year of the claim corporation shall be deemed as the provisional payments of the representative director, and that the disposition calculated by multiplying the amount by 365 days is not erroneous.
This argument is reasonable by estimating the provisional payment of the claimant corporation in 85-10.24 on the basis of the cash re-payment amount of the claimant corporation in 88.10.24, which was based on the presumption of the provisional payment amount by the claimant corporation in 85-87.
5. Hearing and determination
In light of the taxation background and claim purport of the disposition agency related to this case, the disposition agency confirmed that the cash re-payment amount of the requesting agency for the three business years between April 1-88.31 and March 31, 88 was KRW 14,97 as a result of the corporate tax investigation for the three business years of the requesting agency and confirmed that the cash re-payment amount of the requesting agency was KRW 144,97 on the basis of that amount, and based on that amount, the amount obtained by subtracting the deposit amount and the stock re-payment amount from the cash and the balance of the deposit at the end of the three business years (3.31 on the date of settlement of accounts) from the cash and the balance of the three business years (3.31 on the date of settlement of accounts) shall be presumed as the payment amount by the representative director, and the amount of the provisional payment was calculated by calculating the
In regard to this, the claimant corporation's assertion that the provisional payment should be estimated at the end of the fiscal year of "85-10.24 on the basis of the cash deficits in the fiscal year of "85-87," and that it should be calculated by drop number x 365. Rather, the claimant's assertion that the provisional payment amount of KRW 265,162,196, which was not accounting on the corporate account books of the year of "87, among the cash deficits in the fiscal year of October 24, 888, should be included in the gross income.
However, as of October 24, 88.10.24, the disposition agency's investigation of the applicant corporation reaches 265,162,196 won in the book, and there is no specific explanation to the applicant corporation's satisfaction of the difference, and it is reasonable that the disposition agency calculates the applicant for the portion of the business year "85-87" on the basis of the lack of cash payment, on the basis of the fact that it is excessively high level in light of social norms, for each year of 329,971,439,67,831,482, 8731,482, 873,549,830 won in the book of the applicant corporation.
However, it is reasonable that the disposition agency should be based on the difference between 265,307,193 won and 144,97 won in the book that was investigated and extracted as of October 24, 88, and 265,162,196 won in the book that was actually held, but it is reasonable that the disposition agency should be presumed that the amount of 14,997 won in the market as of October 24, 88 is actual cash time as of the end of each business year that was seven months and twenty-seven months before the end of each business year, and that the difference between the cash time in the book that was claimed as of the end of each business year and the cash time in the book that was collected as of the end of each business year should not be recognized as legitimate in view of the nature of the changeable cash time.
In other words, the amount to be recognized as being out of the company due to the provisional payment for the representative shall be deemed to be the maximum of the difference between the pilot on the books extracted from the investigation and the actual pilot on the books, and unlike this, the presumption of the disposition agency that appeared to have been out of the company much more than the shortage recovered from the investigation should not be arbitrary.
Therefore, in the case of this case where the amount of cash shortage 265,162,196 won was out of the company at any time or it is not clearly proved by the explanatory materials, etc. of the applicant corporation, it is judged that the amount of 265,162,192 won in this case should be considered as the amount paid by the representative director, and it is reasonable that the amount of the revenue should be included in the calculation of earnings.
This case's petition for adjudication is deemed to be partly reasonable as a result of the review, so it shall be decided as ordered under Articles 81 and 65(1)3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes.