Seocho 2012west 1904 (Law No. 21, 2012)

The original taxation disposition is legitimate because the money paid by the Plaintiff cannot be considered as necessary expenses corresponding to the amount of income.

The amount paid by the Plaintiff cannot be considered as necessary expenses corresponding to the amount of income, and even if necessary, the timing of payment does not change from the taxable period of the global income tax imposition and thus, the disposition imposing global income tax is legitimate.

2012Guhap13931 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing global income tax, etc.

NewA

Head of Geumcheon Tax Office

August 14, 2012

August 24, 2012

1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part that the Defendant sought revocation of each disposition imposing global income tax of 2005 and global income tax of 000 won in 2006, which was filed against the Plaintiff on March 11, 201.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

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

Each disposition taken by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on March 11, 201, the global income tax of 000 won in 2005, the global income tax of 000 won in 2006, and the global income tax of 000 won in 2007 (the "00 won of the Director" seems to be a clerical error) shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 28, 2007, the Plaintiff engaged in the construction and sale of a primary complex building under the trade name of DDplplplus (hereinafter “instant business place”) from 000 to 00, Seoul Special Metropolitan City OOdong 000, and transferred all of the above business to BB.

B. The Director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office: (a) the integration of personal taxes against the Plaintiff from January 10, 201 to February 7, 2011;

After the investigation, the plaintiff did not prepare and submit a detailed statement of daily labor income for 2005 and 2006 in relation to the business income of the workplace of this case, confirmed the excessive appropriation of 000 won for daily labor expense for 2007, and notified the defendant of the above contents.

C. On March 11, 201, the Defendant separately decided and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 000 of the global income tax in 2005, KRW 000 of the global income tax in 2006, and KRW 000 of the global income tax in 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “the tax imposition imposition disposition of each of the instant tax in 2005 and the portion reverted to the year 2006”) and the portion reverted to the year 2007.

D. On May 11, 201, the Board of Audit and Inspection to review only the disposition imposing global income tax in the instant case.

However, the above claim was dismissed on February 22, 2012.

[Grounds for Recognition] The non-sovered facts, Gap evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 1 to 2, and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s defense prior to the merits

Article 56 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that administrative litigation against any disposition under this Act or any other tax-related Act shall not be filed without going through the review office or a request for review and a decision thereon. However, unlike the global income tax disposition of this case, the Plaintiff did not go through the review procedure on each disposition of this case. Therefore, the part seeking the cancellation of each disposition of this case among the lawsuit of this case is inappropriate, and the Defendant’s defense prior to the merits is justified. The Plaintiff asserts that the imposition of global income tax of this case and the imposition of each of the additional taxes of this case, which have been requested by the Board of Audit and Inspection, are related to each other by submitting the daily wage payment specification.The global income tax is imposed on the amount of income for one year from January 1 to December 31, and the taxation period differs, and the taxation period of each disposition of this case is more than 207 years, and the taxation period of each disposition of this case does not fall under any of the above dispositions of this case for the purpose of Article 28(3) of the Administrative Litigation Act.

3. Whether the disposition imposing global income tax of this case is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff borrowed 000 won from thisCC and paid interest 000 won, and the above borrowed funds used as expenses related to the business of the workplace of this case, such as design expenses, supervision expenses, removal expenses, etc., and the interest reduced the business income as an industry and the inventory value at the time of comprehensive transfer in 2007. Therefore, the above paid interest should be deducted as business related expenses, and the disposition of global income tax of this case on different premise is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

Paper in the Appendix

C. Determination

In a lawsuit seeking revocation of global income tax assessment, the burden of proof on the tax base, which is the basis of taxation, is at the tax authority, and the tax base is calculated by deducting necessary expenses from income, and thus, the tax authority bears the burden of proof. However, as necessary expenses are not only favorable to the tax-free person, but most of the facts generating necessary expenses are located in the territory under the control of the taxpayer, so it is difficult for the tax authority to prove. If it is reasonable to allow the taxpayer to prove the tax, taking into account the difficulty of proof or equity between the parties, etc., it accords with the concept of fairness (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du22955, Mar. 26, 2009). In light of the above legal principles, it is reasonable to recognize the necessity of proof against the taxpayer (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 4; Supreme Court Decision 2005Du0060, 2006, and 200, respectively, and there is no need to acknowledge that the Plaintiff’s tax payment period of global income and other necessary expenses.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, among the lawsuits in this case, the part seeking revocation of the imposition of additional tax in this case is illegal, and it is dismissed, and the remaining claims of the plaintiff are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.