Examination income 2014-0084

It is reasonable to view the Plaintiff as the actual representative of the instant legal entity.

The evidence presented by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to deny that the plaintiff is a real representative of the corporation of this case, and the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 106 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act

District Court 2015Guhap221 global income and revocation of disposition

Song AA

Head of Namyang District Tax Office

August 25, 2015

September 22, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of global income tax of KRW 16,519,00 against the Plaintiff on February 7, 2014 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From January 22, 2010 to January 8, 2012, the Plaintiff was registered as a representative director in the corporate register of BBF Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “BBF”).

B. After conducting a partial investigation of value-added tax on the suspicion of variable transactions by credit card in the business year 2010 of BBF, the head of the Nowon Tax Office assessed the tax base and amount of corporate tax on income in the business year 201 and notified the Plaintiff, the representative director in the corporate register of BBF, as bonus, to the Defendant, the tax office having jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s domicile, while disposing of the amount of income change as a bonus.

C. Accordingly, on February 7, 2014, the Defendant decided and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 16,519,589 of the global income tax for the year 201 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for examination on August 21, 2014, but the Plaintiff’s request for examination was filed.

November 12, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The actual representative director of BBE is KimB, and the Plaintiff is merely a loan of only its name upon the request of KimB, a person with bad credit standing. Therefore, the instant disposition based on the premise that the Plaintiff is the actual representative director of BBE is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) The recognition contribution system for a representative under Article 106(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act does not provide that the representative shall not be based on the facts that such income was generated, but shall be deemed as a bonus for a non-conditional representative regardless of its substance with respect to certain facts recognized as such in order to prevent an unfair act under tax laws by a corporation. The representative shall be a de facto representative operating the company. Thus, even if the company was registered as the representative director in the corporate register, if there is no actual operation of the company, such recognition income shall not be attributed to the representative and shall not be imposed on the representative. However, since the representative director in the corporate register can be presumed to be actually operating the company, the representative director in the corporate register must prove that the representative director has actually failed to operate the company.

2) However, it is insufficient to recognize that KimB in the business year 201 KimB was the substantial representative director of the BBF in the business year 201, and the Plaintiff was the only director of the BBF, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

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.