early 2011west 2518 ( October 13, 2011)

It shall be proved by the taxpayer that the expenses corresponding to the omitted income are not reported or omitted.

With respect to the fact that the total amount of revenue should be added to the income amount, and the cost corresponding to the omitted income is not reported, unless there is any evidence that there was a separate expense corresponding to the omitted income, a taxpayer who seeks a separate deduction shall assert and prove, but the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize it as necessary expenses and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise

2011Revocation of revocation of the imposition of global income tax, etc.

Jeon AAA

Head of Yeongdeungpo Tax Office

May 23, 2013

July 4, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On April 4, 2011, the Defendant’s revocation of the part exceeding KRW 000,000, out of the global income tax for the year 2005, against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 1, 2009, the Plaintiff engaged in printing business with the trade name of “BBBP,” and issued a tax invoice (hereinafter referred to as “market tax invoice”) in 2005 to the CCC Life Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “CCP”) as follows, and among them, omitted the return of value-added tax and global income tax on the total value of 000 won (hereinafter referred to as “the total value of the non-market sales omission”). However, on July 1, 2009, the Defendant imposed value-added tax amount of 00 won on the Plaintiff for the omitted sales at issue, and the Plaintiff was determined as it did not object to the disposition.

C. On February 28, 2011, the Plaintiff included the omitted sales amount in the total income amount in 2005, and included 000 won equivalent to the cost corresponding to the omitted sales amount in the necessary expenses (hereinafter “instant response costs”) in the revised global income tax return for the year 2005.

D. The Defendant reviewed the above revised return and notified 00 won in global income tax amounting to 2005 on April 4, 201, on the following grounds that the instant response costs were paid in 2004, and the remainder response costs were not verified by evidence and books as additional expenses, and the instant response costs were not included in necessary expenses, and 000 won in global income tax amounting to 2005 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal, but was dismissed by the Tax Tribunal on October 13, 201.

F. On March 6, 2013, the Defendant, while proceeding in the instant lawsuit, included only KRW 000 (tax invoice dated January 10, 2005) in the business income belonging to year 2005, thereby reducing the total income tax amount corresponding to the year 2005 as KRW 000.

[Reasons for Recognition] The entry into Gap and Eul evidence 1 and 2, and Eul evidence 1 through 6 (including provisional lot number application in case of a natural disaster) and the whole purport of the pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff traded with CCC life for 10 years, but no transaction has been made until now since it was supplied with cCC life in December 2004, 2005, and sales revenue related to cCC life for 000 won (tax invoices of January 10, 2005) also belongs to 2004. Therefore, the instant disposition was made after the lapse of the period of exclusion, and thus, the Plaintiff sought revocation of the portion exceeding the aggregate income tax of 000 won, which was revised and corrected on February 28, 201 (the relevant business income related to cCC life in December 2005 was excluded from the mitigation of the instant disposition).

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form. The entry in the relevant statutes is as follows.

C. Determination

1) The Defendant asserts that: (a) the Plaintiff included the amount omitted in the sales of the instant case in the calculation of the total income amount for which 2005 was included in the global income tax return; and (b) the period for filing a request for correction has already become final and conclusive; (c) the sales omission amount in the instant disposition is business income for 2004 years or business income for which the tax base and tax amount can no longer be disputed in the revocation lawsuit of the instant disposition; (d) however, the increase in the tax base and tax amount is not a disposition of additional determination of the tax base and tax amount without filing the initial tax base and tax amount determined by the tax authority; and (e) one tax base and tax amount are determined as a whole, including the tax base and tax amount determined in the initial return or decision made by the tax authority; and (e) whether the increase in the tax base and tax amount were unlawful in the appeal litigation seeking revocation of the increase in tax amount should be determined by whether the tax amount exceeds the legitimate tax amount; and (e) the reason for filing a request for correction or correction of tax amount for revocation is not inconsistent with the tax authority’s filing an appeal 13 grounds for revocation.

2) It is recognized that the sales amount of 000 won (tax invoice dated January 10, 2005) produced within 200 won and supplied to a designated place, and that the whole purport of the pleadings is added to each entry in Gap evidence 8, and that the plaintiff entered into a contract for foreign service production with CCC life on March 12, 2004, and with non-foreign service 60,000 copies ( quarter) on four occasions until December 31, 204. However, considering that the non-foreign service contract is approved on printing of CC life, the plaintiff did not have any other evidence that 20 years, including those that 20 years, should have been issued, and that 20 years have not yet passed since the date of approval of printing of CC life, and that 20 years have not yet passed since the date of delivery, and that 20 years have not yet passed since the date of delivery, 20 years have more than 10,000,000 won, and that 20 years have no other evidence that 3.

3) The Plaintiff sought revocation of the portion exceeding the amount of the revised tax return on February 25, 2011. As such, the instant response costs are deemed necessary expenses. Unless there is evidence to support that there was separate expenditure for expenses corresponding to the omitted income, the entire amount of income should be added to the amount of income, and with respect to the omission income, it accords with the empirical rule and the principle of equity (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du28076, Apr. 28, 201) to require a taxpayer to seek a separate deduction to assert and prove that the expenses corresponding to the omission income were omitted (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du28076, Apr. 28, 201). Accordingly, the Plaintiff reported the revised tax return on February 25, 201; the Plaintiff did not clearly distinguish the necessary expenses attributed to the year 204 and the necessary expenses attributed to the Plaintiff in 2005 from the global income return on February 205, etc.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.