Seoul Administrative Court 2010Guhap35074 ( November 04, 2011)

Seocho 208west 2526 (2010.06.03)

Unless it is recognized that services were provided at a higher level, taxation disposition is unlawful.

Unless it is recognized that the service is similar to the service in this case, it is legitimate to calculate the market price of the service based on its return rate, and as long as it is not recognized that the service was provided at a higher rate, the taxation disposition is unlawful.

2011Nu41924 (205.30)

AAA Automobile Corporation

Head of Seocho Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2010Guhap35074 decided November 4, 2011

April 4, 2012

May 30, 2012

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant's imposition of KRW 000 of corporate tax for the business year 2002 and the imposition of KRW 000 of corporate tax for the business year 2003 on April 10, 2008 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. The part citing the judgment of the court of first instance

The reasoning of this Court concerning this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the first instance judgment is as follows, with the exception of adding to the determination of the argument that the deceased party has made in the trial as follows. The corresponding part is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The term “BB” shall be read as “BBB” between the 9th and the 8th and above of the 12th and the 8th and above.

(c)

If the rate of return is increased due to circumstances, such as reduction of the cost, among the fifth below below the 5th one, 'if the rate of return is increased.'

The term "if the cost is reduced due to technical development, improvement of distribution structure, etc." is high.

From this point to the fifth point in the beginning of 'the 15th century', 'the 5th one is as follows:

B is merely a quality difference between the services provided by BB and the services provided by BB, such as arranging the subcontractor to the Plaintiff or providing the equipment leasing services through a company equipped with the equipment, but BBB is equipped with its own equipment and establishing an integrated system. In addition, it cannot be deemed that the transaction between the Plaintiff and BB is identical to the economic substance between the Plaintiff and BBB, and it is apparent that the transaction with BBB is made with a specially related party.

2. Additional determination

A. Defendant’s assertion

Since the instant service received by the Plaintiff before and after the establishment of BB, the unit price paid to the previous transaction entity for the instant service constitutes a company as provided in Article 89(1) of the former Corporate Tax Act. The value calculated by applying the return rate prior to the increase of the unit price by BB is evaluated in an objective and reasonable manner and constitutes the market price as provided in Article 89(1) of the former Corporate Tax Act. Among the instant service, the amount of thp transport service for export during the instant service is similar to the thp transport service for domestic consumption. Since BB is similar to the thp transport service for domestic consumption, the value of thp transport service for export calculated on the basis of the return rate of thp transport service for domestic consumption provided by a consumer who is not a specially related party to BB constitutes the market

B. Determination

Article 89(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides for the “market price generally traded between many and unspecified persons or between third parties who are not specially related parties” in the circumstances similar to the “market price” in which the “market price” includes an objective exchange value formed through a general and normal transaction. In light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to view that the “market price” under Article 88(1)7 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act is the amount calculated by applying the rate of return, etc. of the instant service provided to the Plaintiff in 201, and that the “BB” under Article 88(1)7 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act is the amount higher than the market price or the market price of the instant service provided to the Plaintiff.”

(i) Tangible transport services for export;

The rate of return on inland expropriation transportation services is the value calculated from the transaction between BB and the Plaintiff, a person with a special relationship, and it is difficult to view it as a normal transaction (the Defendant asserts that the service at inland expropriation is merely a transaction with a person with a special relationship, not a person with a special relationship, if the completed automobile transportation service is provided to the consumer and the consumer pays the service to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff asserts that the payment for the service at inland expropriation is merely a transaction with a person with a special relationship. The payment for the service at inland expropriation is determined through consultation between the Plaintiff andCC and the consumer only choose whether the service is provided with the payment determined and the consumer directly, and thus, the parties are both the Plaintiff and the BBBBB in the determination of the payment for the service at inland expropriation. The two services are divided into the domestic market and the export market, and the supply and demand situation of the service at domestic level vary depending on the market price competition or price strategy, and it is difficult to view the difference between the cost of the service at inland storage and the market price at which the transport market price is calculated.

(ii) MP transport services;

In 201, 2002, and 2003, there are differences between oil price fluctuations, other price index, economic situation, and market environment change, which are important factors in the transport price determination, and 36 existing enterprises provide the plaintiff with services provided by the 36 existing enterprises through the integrated management system and IMB to the plaintiff through the integrated management system, it seems that there is a difference in service quality, and CC has increased service quality by actually managing and supervising the subcontractor (Evidence A 10 to 14). It is difficult to view that BB calculated by applying the rate of return on transport services provided by IMB to the plaintiff in 2001 and 2003 as the amount higher than the market price or market price.

(iii) equipment leasing services;

(a) Lease of other company equipment;

BB provides services at the level of managing other companies equipped with equipments due to the failure of self-support equipment, while BBB has no choice but to delay the provision of services in case of the failure of equipment, while BB is able to prepare for similar situations with self-support equipment, the difference between the supply of services by the BB and the supply of services by theCC is different in material sections, and in 2001 and 2002, and in 2003, economic situation and market environment change, it is difficult to view that the cost of lease services by the other president for the year 2002 and 2003, calculated by the rate of return on the provision of services by theCC to the Plaintiff in 201, is higher than the market price or market price.

(b) Lease of self-employed equipment;

After calculating the market price rate based on the lease price of other company equipment which can not be recognized as the company, the lease price of the company equipment can not be recognized as higher than the market price or the market price of the company.

(iv)Ediopia services;

The plaintiff did not increase the unit price in BB in 2001 due to the failure of BB and Edia to engage in the service after 1995, the unit price was determined by reflecting only the first half-year economic situation in 1995-2001 ( evidence No. 5, No. 46), and BBB had improved quality compared to the service provided by BB (Evidence No. 6, evidence No. 16), including improving the pre-shipment inspection standards after taking over the service from BB around March 2001 and increasing approximately 13.6% of the working hours per vehicle (M/H) (Evidence No. 6, evidence No. 16), and BB had agreed with the plaintiff jointly and severally with the subcontractor, unlike BB, that the market price in 200 and 202, and the economic situation in 200 and 203, calculated by applying the market price in 200 and 200, respectively.

3. Conclusion

The appeal is dismissed.