Whether the plaintiff actually pays the amount appropriated as the cost of outsourcing processing

The details of accounts appropriated by the Plaintiff as external processing expenses and wages for workers cannot be deemed necessary because there is no ground to view that the actual payment was made.

Article 14 of the Corporate Tax Act

2017Guhap60650 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing corporate tax, etc.

J****

*The Director of the Tax Office

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s each disposition of imposing corporate tax of KRW 343,573,090 (including additional tax) and corporate tax of KRW 187,05,980 (including additional tax) for the business year 2011 against the Plaintiff on June 1, 2016 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, a corporation engaged in the manufacture, repair, etc. of rolling stock, filed a report on the amount of income for the business year 201 with the Defendant as KRW 8,364,724,727, the tax base of KRW 239,046,683, and the amount of income for the business year 2012 as KRW 7,196,216,469, and the tax base of KRW 180,825,483.

B. From March 7, 2016 to March 26, 2016, the Defendant conducted a corporate integration investigation with respect to the Plaintiff. From March 7, 2016 to March 26, 2016, on March 25, 2016, the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to submit explanatory materials as to the actual disbursement of KRW 1,320,049,00,00, the sum of the cost of external processing for the outsourcing processing machinery (*,*, Chapter*), B (*, **, **, *) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

C. Upon completion of the above tax investigation, the Defendant: (a) included only KRW 516,860,00,000, which was actually paid, among the KRW 1,376,547,818, which was included in the cost of external processing at the time of filing a corporate tax return for the business year 201; and (b) included the difference of KRW 859,687,818 in deductible expenses for which the determination of whether to pay is not verified

D. In addition, the Defendant confirmed that: (a) the Plaintiff’s 641,572,00 won, which was included in the cost of daily-paid work, was the Plaintiff’s 641,572,00 won included in the cost of daily-paid work at the time of filing a corporate tax return for the business year 2012; and (b) the Plaintiff’s 30 million won, claiming that the Plaintiff paid KRW 10 million each to Park △△, △△, △△△△, and △△△△, which was the Plaintiff’s 641,572,000 won, as the cost of daily-paid work; and (c) disposed of other income to each of the relevant holders or representatives.

E. According to the results of the above tax investigation, on June 1, 2016, the Defendant respectively corrected and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 343,573,090 of corporate tax for the business year 201 (including additional tax of KRW 154,441,777) and KRW 187,05,980 of corporate tax for the business year 2012 (including additional tax of KRW 76,957,040) (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”).

F. The Plaintiff sought revocation of each of the dispositions in this case and requested an inquiry to the Tax Tribunal, but the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim on January 5, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 4, 10, Eul evidence 1, 2, 3 (if any)

include number, hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) As to the cost of outsourcing processing for the business year 2011

The plaintiff disbursed KRW 1,320,049,00 to the proceeds from supply to AA during the year of 2011. This is * The plaintiff entered into with DDD Product Industry Co., Ltd. * The plaintiff is supplied with necessary mid-term and mid-term drivers from AA, etc. to implement the contract for the construction work before the Railroad Vehicle Base Transfer.

Although the Plaintiff did not prepare a contract between AA mid-term and others, the Plaintiff requested a mid-term and related human resources supply by telephone whenever a mid-term loan is needed, and paid the price by cash or account transfer, etc., and issued a total of 96 tax invoices from AA mid-term and others. The details of the tax invoice are consistent with the details of the actual supply price paid by the Plaintiff.

Therefore, even though the cost of outsourcing processing for the business year 201 falls under the necessary expenses, the defendant judged that the above amount was processed without sufficient proof and imposed corporate tax for the business year 201 among each of the dispositions of this case. Thus, it is unlawful.

2) As to the cost of outsourcing processing for the business year 2012

Although the plaintiff did not present a specific argument as to this part, it is determined by the defendant's assertion to the effect that the defendant processed necessary expenses without sufficient proof.

B. Determination

1) Legal principles

Considering that the burden of proof of tax base, which is the basis of taxation in a lawsuit seeking revocation of a corporate tax disposition, is the tax authority, and the tax base is the tax authority, and the burden of proof of revenue and necessary expenses is the tax authority, since the tax base is deducted from necessary expenses, but the necessary expenses are favorable to the taxpayer and most of the facts generating necessary expenses are within the area under the control of the taxpayer and it is easy to prove them, it accords with the concept of fairness to recognize the necessity of proof to the taxpayer by allowing presumption of non-existence with respect to necessary expenses that the taxpayer does not perform the verification (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du1588, Sept. 23, 20

2) As to the cost of outsourcing processing for the business year 2011

The evidence Nos. 7 and 8 is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was the necessary expenses actually paid to AA during the construction site, number of persons, and work details on the basis of the tax invoices or the descriptions of the tax invoices issued by AA during the construction period, etc., and there is no other evidence to acknowledge them.

Rather, taking into account the following circumstances, which can be known by the purport of the Plaintiff’s evidence Nos. 9, 2, 4, and 5 as well as the entire pleadings, the Defendant’s inclusion of only KRW 516,860,00 of the Plaintiff’s external processing costs in deductible expenses for the business year 201, and the difference of which the issue of whether to pay is confirmed is non-deductible expenses, and imposing corporate tax on the Plaintiff based thereon is justifiable.

① Of the cost of outsourcing processing appropriated by the Plaintiff for the business year 2011, the Defendant recognized that the Plaintiff paid the price through the Plaintiff’s company bank or the Korean bank corporation account in the period of AA, etc. as genuine. However, the part of the tax invoice confirmed to have been transferred to another person’s bank account, the details of payment are not verified, the portion of the tax invoice verified to have been paid in cash, the fact that the Plaintiff was paid in cash, and the portion of the tax invoice that the Plaintiff did not respond to the amount and the payment date is confirmed as only the fact that cash was paid in cash, and all of the tax invoice that the Defendant did not respond to the tax invoice

② In the business year 201, KRW 158,843,00 was withdrawn in cash from the Plaintiff’s corporate account. The Plaintiff may clarify whether and subject to payment by account transfer. In fact, several transactions exist, consistent with the tax invoice. Thus, insofar as it is difficult to deem that there was a circumstance to have paid the price for the AA, etc. by means of cash payment, it is difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff paid the price in cash.

③ On July 5, 201, the Plaintiff, an employee of his/her corporate account, was transferred from the Plaintiff’s company account to the new △△△△△△△△△△△△△△, Park △△*, and Park *, respectively. As to this, the Plaintiff asserted to the effect that the said employee again withdrawn the said amount in cash and paid the said amount to AA mid-term, etc., however, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have a reason for the said employee to pay the amount to AA mid-term, etc., as well as the said payment method is very exceptional. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on such payment is difficult to believe.

3) As to the cost of outsourcing processing for the business year 2012

There is no sufficient evidence to recognize that the Plaintiff paid KRW 530,00,000, which claimed that the Plaintiff paid as a daily worker’s wage through New ○○ and △△△△△△, New ▽△△△, and △△△△△△, as a bonus, among the amount included in the cost of the daily work processing expenses at the time when the corporate tax was reported in 2012, and KRW 30,000,000,000,

Rather, considering the following circumstances that can be known by the purport of the evidence No. 9-2 and No. 2 and the entire pleadings, it is justifiable to exclude the Plaintiff from deductible expenses KRW 560,032,00, which is the sum of each of the above amounts, and to impose corporate tax on the Plaintiff based thereon.

① From among daily workers who were recorded in the daily worker’s payment record that the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant as an explanatory material on the fact of paying wages for daily employed workers, a worker whose telephone conversations with the Defendant had no fact of work as alleged by the Plaintiff. In the case of the remaining workers, the person whose resident registration number was verified to have been erroneous, whose contact number was unclear, and whose name was not verified, cannot be deemed to have been actually paid.

② On June 1, 2012, the Plaintiff’s corporate account was transferred to Park △△△△, new △△△△△, and Park△△△△ on June 1, 2012, with each of the KRW 10 million to the said employees. The accounts of Park△△△△, new △△△△, and Park△△△ did not contain any details of transactions other than the said transactions, and there was no fact that the Plaintiff paid bonuses to other employees than the said employees. The said employees’ accounts are deemed to be the accounts opened in the name of the employees, and the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have actually paid bonuses to

3. Conclusion

Therefore, each of the claims of the plaintiff in this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.