National Tax Service Review Income 2012-002 (23 March 2012)

Since the plaintiff seems to have actually paid user fees, the disposition imposed as processing expenses is unlawful.

In full view of the fact that it is difficult to regard the user fee as the cost of processing, etc., the disposition of global income tax imposed by deeming the user fee as the cost of processing is unlawful.

2012Guhap24832 global income and revocation of disposition

UnionA

Samsung Head of Samsung Tax Office

November 20, 2012

December 20, 2012

1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 000 of the global income tax for the year 2005 against the Plaintiff on May 23, 201 is revoked.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Advertisement that is called D Communications from December 30, 2002 to April 22, 2007 by the Plaintiff

At the time of global income tax return for 2005, 000 won of user fee for ancillary facilities such as EEE(hereinafter referred to as "the fee of this case") was included in necessary expenses in relation to outdoor advertising business.

B. Around August 2009, the head of the Gangnam District Tax Office confirmed that the Plaintiff did not receive evidence from the EE (EE) Co., Ltd. in the course of the personal entrepreneur investigation against the Plaintiff, and confirmed that the EE did not receive the pertinent fee, and notified the Defendant thereof.

C. On May 23, 2011, the Defendant deemed the instant royalty as processing expenses and notified the Plaintiff of the global income tax of KRW 000 in 2005.

D. On August 18, 201, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an objection against the Defendant on August 18, 201, and the Defendant, on October 4, 201, acknowledged that the Plaintiff was jointly operated by FF and D Communications, and subsequently corrected the disposition of imposition of global income tax amounting to KRW 000 in the said disposition of imposition of global income tax for the year 2005 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. On January 4, 2012, the Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for review with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, and on March 23, 2012, the Commissioner of the National Tax Service issued the instant disposition with respect to whether the advertising materials alleged by the Plaintiff were posted on the outer wall of the building owned EE, and if posted, how much the amount paid as the royalty was paid.

The survey made a decision to conduct a reinvestigation.

F. In accordance with the above re-audit decision, the Defendant deemed that the instant disposition, which was re-audited, but did not include necessary expenses, was justifiable, and completed the investigation, and notified the Plaintiff of the fact on May 4, 2012.

[Recognitions] The descriptions of Gap, 13, 15, 16, and 1 and 4, and the whole purport of the pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff engaged in an advertising agency business specializing in outdoor advertising, and has paid the royalty and affixed the banner advertisement by leasing the EEE-EE exhibition external wall from the 2003 EE to the EE, but at the request of the EE, it was not possible to receive a tax invoice for the royalty of this case, and there was no choice but to pay the royalty in cash. In light of the following: (a) the agreement on the use of ancillary facilities entered into with the EE, the details of the Plaintiff’s deposit passbook withdrawal, and the fact that the Plaintiff attached the advertising banner on the EE external wall, and the sales tax invoice was issued accordingly, the Plaintiff can be aware that the Plaintiff actually paid the fee of this case to the EE; and (b) the instant disposition that considered the instant royalty as the processing expense is unlawful

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Facts of recognition

1) On April 28, 2003, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with EEE and between May 1, 2003 and October 31, 2003, under which the Plaintiff shall make up for the total amount of KRW 000 per month by attaching the banner on the outer wall and the EE Busan exterior wall.

(2) In addition, on December 20, 2004, the Plaintiff and EEE entered into a water use contract for ancillary facilities (hereinafter referred to as the “instant contract”), and the main contents are as follows:

3) In 2005, the Plaintiff received advertisement from GGGGG Korea, etc., attached the advertisement advertisement on the building outer walls of Seoul, Gwangju, and Daegu EE, and then issued the sales tax invoice accordingly.

(Omission of Sales Tax Invoice)

"4) 원고는 2005년에 서울 명동 EEEE 외벽에 영화 'OO'， 'OOO'， 'OOOOO' 현수막 광고물을， 부산 EEEE 외벽에 맥도날드 및 영화 'OOOO'， 'OOOO'， 'OOOO'， 'OOOO'， 'OO' 현수막 광고물을， 광주 EEEE 외벽에 영화 'OOO，， 'O'， 'OOO' 현수막 광고물을， 대구 EEEE 외벽에 영화 'OOOO'， 'OOOO' 현수막 광고물 등을 각 부착하였다.",5) 원고는 원고 명의의 우리은행 예금통장에서 2005. 1. 24. 000원， 2005. 2. 17.000원， 2005. 3. 17. 000원， 2005. 4. 20. 000원， 2005. 5. 20. 000 원， 2005. 6. 20. 000원， 2005. 7. 19. 000원， 2005. 8. 30. 000원， 2005. 9. 13. 000원， 2005. 11. 14. 000원， 2005. 12. 13. 000원을 각 현금으로 인출하였다.

6) Meanwhile, on January 15, 2010, EE may be ordered to be advertised only when a contract for use is entered into in order for the plaintiff to receive the advertisement. Thus, once a contract for the use of a provisional contract that does not specify monthly user fee and deposit is prepared, and when an advertisement is ordered, it is prepared by accepting the plaintiff's proposal that the contract for the use of a monthly user fee and deposit should be concluded by settling monthly user fee and deposit, and since it is not a regular contract, it is not a proposal that the plaintiff will enter into the regular contract, and therefore, it does not have any fact that the monthly user fee and deposit are not prepared and the monthly user fee and deposit are not received.

The vindication of the instant contract was submitted.

[Based on Recognition] The identification of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, Eul evidence No. 3, and the whole purport of the pleading

D. Determination

The evidence mentioned above and the whole purport of the pleading are as follows.

① In other words, the Plaintiff received advertisement from GG Korea, etc. in 2005, attached various kinds of advertising materials, etc. to the Busan, Daegu, and the outer wall of the EE building in 2005, and it is clear that there are sales using the EE exterior wall, so the cost directly corresponding to the above sales can be seen as the user fee of the EE building outer wall, and the Plaintiff and EE is reasonable to view that the user fee was not paid every month from January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2005, and that the Plaintiff did not receive the user fee from the E bank in 200, the Plaintiff did not receive the user fee from the E in 200, e.g., the e., the e., Seoul, Daegu, and Gwangju, the e.g., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e.g., the e., the e., the e., the 2000 and the e.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is justified and accepted.