early 2012west0411 (Law No. 112, 04.30)

Subsidies paid by a private teaching institute operating corporation to its students whose pass is revoked due to the leakage of examination problems shall not be included in deductible expenses.

The subsidy of this case is paid as litigation costs and consolation money to the private teaching institutes whose success in the examination was revoked because it was clearly revealed that the plaintiff's external appearance problem was leaked, and it is difficult to expect the disbursement to the juristic person that operates the private teaching institute business in a normal manner and has no relevance with the work of the private teaching institute, and

2012Guhap25316 Revocation of Disposition of Corporate Tax Imposition

AAE Research Institute Co., Ltd.

The head of Yangcheon Tax Office

February 27, 2013

March 29, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

"The part of the imposition of KRW 00 of corporate tax of KRW 000 for the business year 2008 against the plaintiff on September 1, 201, in excess of KRW 000, and KRW 000 among the imposition of corporate tax of KRW 000 for the business year 2009, and KRW 000 for the business year 2010 shall be revoked (the plaintiff entered in the claim and the application for change of the cause of the claim as of January 22, 2013 in this case as of September 19, 201, which seems to be a clerical error in the calculation of KRW 00 for the business year 200, which appears to be September 1, 201)."

1. Details of the disposition;

A. 1) The superintendent of the Gyeonggi-do Office of Education established measures to improve the methods of entrance screening, such as jointly responding to the recruitment process of new students of foreign language high schools in Gyeonggi-do (hereinafter referred to as "foreign language high schools"), such as the BB foreign language high schools (hereinafter referred to as "CC non-high schools"), the Annyang foreign language high schools (hereinafter referred to as "Annative foreign high schools"), and the Annyang foreign language high schools (hereinafter referred to as "annative high schools"), according to the direction of the Minister of Education and Human Resources Development, to ensure fairness and reliability in entering the schools of special purpose high schools.

(2) On October 30, 2007, the superintendent of the Gyeonggi-do Office of Education constituted the Gyeonggi-do Council of Education for the purpose of conducting general pre-admission entrance examinations at the same time: on October 2007, 2008, 9 non-permanent entrance examinations in Gyeonggi-do were jointly launched, and on October 25, 2007, 2008, 2008, 30 non-permanent type joint entrance examinations council of 200-years and 30-years and 20-years and 30-years and 20-years and 30-years and 20-years and 30-years and 20-years and 30-years and 20-years and 30-years and 20-years and 30-years and 20-days and 30-days and 20-days and 30-days and 20-days and 30-days and 2.

(4) However, DoD, upon request of the CE, divided the above 20th 23:45 on October 29, 2007, and 0:0:02 on October 30, 2007, 200: 0:00, and 00:03 on October 30, 2007, 2008, 2008, 300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000: 3:0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,000.

B) 1) After the entrance examination of this case was conducted, there was black evidence that some of the BB examinations were leaked in advance through the Internet, etc., BB was requested to the police on Nov. 5, 2007, and the police on Nov. 16, 2007, upon the request of the Red EE on Oct. 30, 2007, sent 38 questions of BB, e-mail, e-mail, e-mail, 38 questions, e-mail, e-mail, e-mail, e-mail, e-mail, 38 questions, e-mail, e-mail, e-mail, 13 text questions of the 38 examination issues, e-mail or almost similarly modified, and published the results of the investigation into the 14th page before printing on the date of printing on the front and rear side of the 1st page of the A4 site.

2) On November 16, 2007, the Superintendent of the Gyeonggi-do Office of Education issued a police interim investigation notice stating the following measures: (a) for existing applicants who are not related to the leakage of literature, passed the examination; (b) for the students of the school of this case related to the leakage of literature, the re-examination for the additional selection of the number of successful applicants shall be conducted before December 20, 207; and (c) on November 26, 2007, the 2007 notice of the additional successful applicants shall be issued before December 18, 2007; and (d) for the 20th of the same month, the 207 notice of the participation of the 10th of the 1st of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 3nd of the 1st of the 2nd.

3) Accordingly, on November 19, 2007, the participants of the instant private teaching institute were notified of the revocation of passing, among those who passed the instant private teaching institute.

C. Upon receipt of the notice of revocation of passing, the private teaching institute students of this case filed a lawsuit against the school juristic person seeking confirmation of invalidity of the disposition of revocation of passing the examination (U.S. District Court 2007Gahap24629 and 2007Gahap24841, and 2007Gahap7552 and 7958) (In each of the above lawsuits, the private teaching institute students of this case who were notified of revocation of passing the examination, and the private teaching institute students of this case or their parents who were on board the school bus of the date of the examination, are not completely revealed as to whether they were on board the school bus of this case, and (ii) there was no possibility that the students on board the school bus of the date of the examination knew or could have known that the examination was a test of outflow of inducement water at the time, and if they did not know that inducement water was a test of outflow of inducement water at the time, they could not be concluded to have any possibility of damage or possibility of damage to the examination.

D. The Plaintiff spent a total of 00 won from 2007 to 2010 as indicated in the table ‘the subsidy of this case' (=the total amount of 00 won + 000 won + 000 won + 000 won) to resolve the instant case, including the attorney's fees, and included it in the deductible expenses when filing a corporate tax return for the business year of 2007 to 2010 (hereinafter below ‘the sum indicated in the table ‘A' + the sum of 00 won + 000 won + 000 won) among the characters written in the table ‘the subsidy of this case').

(Omission of List)

E and 1) The director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office, from April 14, 2011 to July 14, 2011, conducted a tax investigation with the Plaintiff with respect to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant, and ① from FF, a person with a special relationship, the Plaintiff leased the building located in AA00 in Yangcheon-gu Seoul, Seoul, and paid the lease deposit and the rent, and included them in deductible expenses, but the amount is excessive. Therefore, applying the unfair act reduction rule under Article 52 of the Corporate Tax Act, the Seoul Regional Tax Office notified the Plaintiff of the content that the Plaintiff should be excluded from deductible expenses, as the Plaintiff’s gross negligence did not constitute expenses related to ordinary revenue and expenditure.

2) Accordingly, on September 1, 201, the Defendant imposed the Plaintiff KRW 000 of the corporate tax for the business year 2006, KRW 000 of the corporate tax for the business year 2007, KRW 000 of the corporate tax for the business year 2008, KRW 000 of the corporate tax for the business year 2009, and KRW 000 of the corporate tax for the business year 2010.

(f) On December 12, 201, the Plaintiff appealed to the Tax Tribunal on December 12, 201, and on April 30, 2012, the Tax Tribunal decided that the lease deposit and the rent paid by the Plaintiff to FF are adequate, and that the Plaintiff’s exclusion from gross income of KRW 000 for the business year 2006, KRW 00 for the business year 2007, and KRW 00 for the business year 2008, and KRW 00 for the business year 2010, and dismissed the other claims.

2) In accordance with the above decision of the Tax Tribunal, the Defendant: (a) confirmed that the corporate tax for the business year 2006 and the corporate tax for the business year 2007 shall be KRW 000,000 each; (b) the corporate tax for the business year 2008 shall be KRW 000; (c) the corporate tax for the business year 2009 shall be KRW 000; and (d) the corporate tax for the business year 2000 for the business year 2000, while the litigation for the instant case was pending, did not deduct the carried forward losses for the business year 2007 from the income for the business year 2008; and (c) revised the reduction or re-reduction of the corporate tax for the business year 2008 as above (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”).

[Based on Recognition] The non-speed facts, Gap evidence 2 and 3, evidence 1 to 5, evidence 18, and evidence 1 to 19, evidence 1 to 5, evidence 2, and evidence 3 evidence 3, and evidence 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The defendant did not recognize the subsidy of this case as deductible expenses on the basis of the general rules of the Corporate Tax Act which provides that the act of the plaintiff operating educational business is related to the performance of the business of the juristic person in case the compensation for damages was caused intentionally or by gross negligence, and the compensation for damages was not caused by the intentional act or gross negligence. However, the basic rules of the National Tax Service do not apply to the administrative rules that issued the criteria for interpretation and enforcement of tax laws within the tax authorities, and it does not have the effect of binding the courts or the people, and the basic rules themselves do not have the legitimate basis for taxation, and the determination of whether the subsidy of this case is legitimate should be made in accordance with the Corporate Tax Act. However, the plaintiff's instruction and teaching for entering the private teaching institute, which is the main business of the plaintiff operating the educational business, and that the plaintiff's subsidy of this case is illegal because it is not related to the plaintiff's business, and that the plaintiff's subsidy of this case's subsidy of this case's case's case's case's case's case's case's correction of the subsidy of this case's case's correction.

B. Relevant statutes

Paper in the Appendix

C. Determination

In principle, Article 19(2) of the Corporate Tax Act provides that " grandchildren shall be losses or expenses incurred in connection with the business of the juristic person which are generally accepted or directly related to profit." Here, the term "generally accepted expenses" means expenses that are deemed to have been disbursed under the same situation with other juristic persons engaged in the same kind of business as taxpayers, and whether such expenses constitute expenses shall be objectively determined by taking into account the following circumstances, including the process, purpose, form, amount, and effect of the disbursement, and the following circumstances known in light of the above facts, (i) the subsidy was disbursed due to the illegal activity of the EE, which is not related to the general affairs of the private teaching institute, and (ii) it is difficult to expect the disbursement to the juristic person operating the private teaching institute business, and (iii) the subsidy was paid directly by the Plaintiff, including the result of the cancellation of the disposition, and (iv) it appears that the subsidy was paid by the Plaintiff and its parents, which would not directly be related to the Plaintiff's activities, and that the subsidy was paid by the Plaintiff, including the result of the cancellation of the subsidy.

3. Conclusion

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