Examination Income-2015-0070 ( November 17, 2015)

If there is no counter-proof that the amount of income is verified by the head of the Tong and is not in accordance with the empirical rule, the amount of admission shall be

There is no dispute over the fact that the issue account is an account in which the credit income amount is managed, and the claimant fails to prove that the issue amount deposited in the issue account is not the omitted income amount. It is reasonable to see that the deposit amount is the revenue amount.

Article 16 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Revocation of a disposition imposing corporate tax, etc.

AA

BB Director of the Tax Office

2017.02.09

December 22, 2016

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 00,00,000 among the detailed and disposition of global income belonging to the year 2009 against the Plaintiff on May 31, 2015 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From January 15, 2001 to August 5, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) ○○○-dong ○○○○○-dong △△△-aaaa in ○○○○, and (b) ○○○-dong 3 in ○○○-si from December 10, 207 to March 5, 2013 by ○○○-si ○△△△△△△△-dong in 201.

'aaa' has been operated respectively from September 1, 2007, and ○○-dong 2, ○○○-dong, from September 1, 2007, to 00-0 to cccc.

B. From March 10, 2015 to June 5, 2015, the director of ○○ Regional Tax Office: (a) as a result of the Plaintiff’s investigation into the source of funds for 2008 to June 5, 2015 and the consolidated investigation into global income tax for 2013 from 2009 to 2013, determined that: (b) as a result of the Plaintiff’s and the Plaintiff’s spouse’s deposit in the accounts in the name of ddddddi, the amount of KRW 00,000,000 for 200,000,000,000,000 for 20,000,0000,000 for 2013,000,0000,000,0000,000,0000 global income tax for dddi’s global income and the amount of global income tax were omitted; and (c) reported to the Defendant.

C. On May 31, 2015, the Defendant issued a correction and notification of KRW 000,000,000 as global income tax for the Plaintiff in 2009 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on August 25, 2015, but was dismissed on November 17, 2015.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Of the money deposited in the business account in the name of the Plaintiff, KRW 00,000,00 from October 9, 2006, the Plaintiff leased “○○○○○○ 00,000-00,000 (hereinafter referred to as “instant A” from the △△△△△ in the name of the nominal owner in the registry) for lease deposit amounting to KRW 00,000,000 from the ○○○○ ○○ ○○ 00,000,000 (hereinafter referred to as “instant case”). However, on August 29, 2007, the Plaintiff terminated the lease contract and kept the lease deposit returned in cash amounting to KRW 00,000 on a small amount of account in the name of the Plaintiff and his spouse, and thus, the Plaintiff’s revenue amount is not the Plaintiff’s business revenue amount. Therefore, the disposition of this case should be revoked as the global income tax amounting to KRW 00,000,000,000.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) On October 9, 2006, between E and E, the Plaintiff drafted a lease agreement with a deposit of KRW 00,000,000 for the lease deposit for the instant A (in the event of a contract, KRW 00,000,000 for the payment of the lease deposit, KRW 00,000 for the intermediate payment of KRW 00,000 for the remainder payment on October 23, 2006, and KRW 00,000 for the remainder payment on October 31, 2006), and KRW 00,000 for the rent month (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

2) On October 31, 2006, the Plaintiff completed the registration of creation of a mortgage on the instant case and its land as joint collateral, with the maximum debt amount of KRW 00,000,000, the debtor e-e, and the Plaintiff’s mortgage. The registration of establishment of a mortgage on the instant land was cancelled on September 4, 2007 due to termination. On October 31, 2006, the Plaintiff completed the registration of establishment of a mortgage on the instant land (aa), with the joint collateral of KRW 00,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00.

3) From 2008 to 2013, the director of ○○ Regional Tax Office conducted the Plaintiff’s investigation into the source of funds for 2013 years and the personal integrated investigation into 2013 years from 2009 to 5 March 2015, 2015. The details of the Plaintiff’s workplace are as follows.

4) The purpose of the Plaintiff’s investigation on the source of funds for the year 2008 was to find out the source of funds of KRW 0,000,000 for the new capital of KRW 0,000,000,000, which was newly constructed in 2008 by the Plaintiff, and its confirmation details are as follows. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff was liable for KRW 0,000,000 for the year 2007, and KRW 0,000,000 for the year 208, and KRW 0,000,000 for the year 209.

5) The staff in charge of the ○○ Regional Tax Office asked the Plaintiff whether the Plaintiff keep relevant data by which it can identify the revenue amount Aa. However, when the employees prepare a statement of accounts every day at the carhouse, the Plaintiff collected and examined it together with a cash revenue and stated that cash was deposited in the passbook, etc. and that the statement of accounts was disposed of from time to time.

6) When the ○○○ regional tax office was unable to verify the Plaintiff’s revenue amount by objective data such as account books, etc., the amount deposited in the account in the name of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s spouse ddddddi (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant account”) in 2009 was determined as the returned revenue amount omitted by calculating the amount of cash revenue reported and the amount of cash withdrawn from the instant account by deducting the amount of cash withdrawn from the said account from the total amount of cash revenue.

D. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

Generally, in a lawsuit seeking the revocation of a tax imposition disposition, the burden of proving the facts of taxation requirements shall be deemed to be an imposing authority. However, in a case where it is proved that the facts of taxation requirements have been presumed in light of the empirical rules in the course of a specific lawsuit, it cannot be readily concluded that the pertinent taxation disposition is unlawful, unless it proves that the pertinent facts of taxation are inappropriate to apply the empirical rules, or that there are special circumstances to exclude the application of such empirical rules in the pertinent case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du6392, Nov. 13, 2002).

2) In light of the following circumstances: (a) the Plaintiff has deposited and managed cash receipts generated in the course of operating a Aa business into the account in this case; (b) it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff was omitted from the return of global income tax in 2009; (c) the Gwangju Regional Tax Office provided the Plaintiff with an opportunity to explain the shortage in the source of funds and the suspicion of omitting the return of the amount of funds during the tax investigation period; (b) there was no mentioning that the Plaintiff operated the business in this case by leasing the amount of funds in 2009; and (c) it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff received the deposit amount in cash within 200 billion won after the return of the amount of funds in 00,000 won; and (d) it is difficult to acknowledge that the Plaintiff received the deposit amount in cash from the Plaintiff’s account in 200,000,000 won, which is less than 200,000,0000 won.

3. Conclusion

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