Whether the withdrawn amount claimed in excess of the amount of oil purchase can be recognized as losses of the company

It cannot be readily concluded that the withdrawal from the account under the name of a corporation was paid as the oil purchase price, and it cannot be recognized as losses.

Article 19 (Scope of Losses)

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of corporate tax of KRW 130,022,420 for the year 203 against the Plaintiff on November 3, 2005 and corporate tax of KRW 92,243,640 for the year 204 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, a corporation operating oil sales business for ships, calculated the amount of income in 2003 as KRW 296,874,548, and the amount of income in 2004 as KRW 59,120,233, and reported and paid corporate tax of KRW 62,455,457, and corporate tax of KRW 8,593,097 in 2003 as the tax base. After that, as a result of the Defendant’s tax investigation, it was confirmed that the Plaintiff supplied petroleum of KRW 745,262,00 in the year 203, and KRW 883,618,00 in the year 204 that the Plaintiff did not issue and deliver a tax invoice for supplying petroleum of KRW 745,262,618,00 in the year 204, the Defendant calculated the amount of income in each taxable year and additionally corrected the amount of corporate tax of KRW 2603,504,2057.

B. On December 19, 2005, the plaintiff filed a request for review with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service for a disposition of correction on November 3, 2005, and according to the plaintiff's account and the account of its employees, the amount of omission of purchase corresponding to the above omission of sale was confirmed to be KRW 724,040,000 in 203, 1,043, 145,000. However, the Commissioner of the National Tax Service stated that among the omission of purchase as claimed by the plaintiff, the remaining portion of the tax base and amount of the above disposition of 304, 200, 300, 414, 205, 200, 300, 414, 205, 40, 205, 205, 304, 205, 300, 205, 204, 2005, 305, 2006, 3015, 304, 15.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 3 evidence (including each number), Eul 1 and 2 evidence (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff purchased oil for vessels at sea from foreign vessels, such as Russia, in some abnormal business forms, and sold it to the domestic shipping company. On the other hand, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice when selling the oil above. Accordingly, the Plaintiff purchased oil equivalent to the purchase price from ○○○, and sold oil equivalent to the purchase price to 40 won for non-public purchase without receiving value-added tax. As above, the Plaintiff sold oil for non-public purchase and the oil price sold to 40 won for non-public purchase without receiving value-added tax to 00 won for 200 won for non-public purchase and 300 won for non-public purchase and 400 won for non-corporate accounts and 400 won for non-corporate accounts. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s non-corporate sales to 300 won for non-corporate purchase and 400 won for non-corporate accounts and 400 won for non-corporate accounts. Thus, the Plaintiff’s non-corporate sales to 300 won for non-corporate purchase and 400 won for non-corporate accounts.

B. Relevant statutes

Article 19 (Scope of Losses)

(1) Deductible expenses shall be the amount of losses incurred by transactions which reduce the net assets of a corporation, excluding return of capital or financing, disposition of surplus funds, and what is provided for in this Act.

(2) The losses under the provisions of paragraph (1) shall be losses or expenses generated or spent in connection with the business of a corporation which are generally accepted as normal or directly related to profit, except as otherwise prescribed by this Act and other Acts and subordinate statutes.

Article 66 (Determination and Correction)

(1) Where any domestic corporation fails to report pursuant to Article 60, the head of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment or the Commissioner of the competent Regional Tax Office shall determine the tax base and tax

(2) Where a domestic corporation files a report under Article 60 in any of the following cases, the head of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment or the Commissioner of the competent Regional Tax Office shall correct the tax base and

1. Where there are errors or omissions in the contents of the report;

(3) Where the head of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment or the Commissioner of the competent Regional Tax Office determines or revises the tax base and amount of corporate tax pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2), he shall make it based on the account books and other documentary evidence: Provided, That where it is impossible to calculate the amount of income using account books

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) During the period from 2003 to 2005, the Plaintiff Company operated a part of its business in an improper manner to purchase marine oil from Russia vessel, etc., such as light oil for vessel use, heavy oil, and mit oil, etc. (hereinafter “the purchase of illegal oil in this case”). The specific process is that, when Russia vessel, etc. purchased from Pussia vessel, Kim○ director or employee of the Plaintiff Company, who is the captain of the vessel of the Plaintiff company, was measured and reported to the Plaintiff Company, after checking the type and quantity of oil, the Plaintiff Company’s ○○ account (Account No. : 00-○○-○○○○○, ○○-○○○-○○○○○○○○○○) in the name of the representative director, and then sold it to the domestic shipping company. However, the amount of cash deposited from 00 won to 00 won to 00 won to 300 won to 00 won to 200 won to 200 won to her account transfer.

(2) The fact that the withdrawal from the corporate account of this case was withdrawn from the account of ○○ Bank (Account Number: ○○○-○○-○○○-○○○○○○) in the name of the Plaintiff Company is recognized as a substitute (in part of the amount inconsistent), and the part that was withdrawn from the said account was reflected in the preparation of the Plaintiff Company’s corporate account books and financial statements, but the purpose of the withdrawal is not specified in the corporate account books, and thus, it cannot be confirmed.

(3) On October 2005, ○○○, the actual representative director of the Plaintiff Company, submitted the following: (a) the amount used for the purchase of illegal petroleum at the time of the investigation conducted by the ○○ Regional Tax Office on suspicion of tax evasion, such as not issuing a tax invoice regarding the purchase of illegal petroleum in this case; (b) the amount used for the purchase of illegal petroleum at the time of the investigation; and (c) when and how much the amount was paid. However, taking into account the type and quantity of oil sold to the shipping company, the details of the payment for the purchase of non-data in attached Form 2 (the amount paid in KRW 873,513,00 from the passbook in the name of ○○○, Gangwon○, and Kim○, 2003, KRW 522,940,000 from the passbook in the name of ○○, ○○, and Kim○, was determined to be the amount used for the purchase of the illegal oil in this case

[Ground of recognition] Facts without a dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's 4 or 9 (including each number), witness Kim-○, Kim○, and Noh○'s testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) If a taxpayer finds any revenue, such as the amount of sales omitted in filing a return of corporate tax base, etc., the tax authority may include the omitted revenue in gross income. If the taxpayer has omitted the return of revenues to be included in gross income in filing a return of tax base, etc., but there is any omission in the return of expenses to be included in deductible expenses corresponding thereto, the claimant for inclusion of such expenses in deductible expenses must prove that the taxpayer has omitted the return of such expenses. This is also reasonable in light of the general principle of proof as to special circumstances where the taxpayer filed a return of insufficient expenses without omission in part of the income, i.e., the taxpayer’s return of insufficient expenses, based on the usual rule of experience, should be based on the burden of proof that it is reasonable in terms of equity (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Nu12912, Mar. 27, 1992).

(2) If ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Company’s ○○○○○○○○○○○○ Company’s ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Company’s 6-year purchase of the instant oil, it cannot be readily concluded that each of the instant corporate accounts on the date on which the Plaintiff’s ○○○○○○○○ was recorded was paid with the purchase price of the instant oil. The Plaintiff’s 5-year 00, supra, did not mention the Plaintiff Company’s 1’s 0-year 6-year 6-year 6-year 6-2’s 6-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-3-2-2-2-3-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-3-3-2-2-3-3-2-2-2-3-3-3-2-3-3-3-2-3-2-3-2-3-3-2-3-2-3-2-3-2-3-3-2-3-2-3-3-3-3-2-2-3-3-2-3-2-3-3-3-2-.

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.