Seocho 2014west 3585 (O2, 2015)

Conducts for which a false park has been repeatedly appropriated for several years shall be subject to the application of an unfair underreporting penalty tax.

The act of repeatedly and repeatedly calculating a false park for several years constitutes an active act such as making it difficult to discover the taxation requirements or making it difficult to discover a false fact by means of ‘False entry in the account book' or ‘the manipulation or concealment of income, profit, act, transaction', etc.

2015Guhap61269 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing global income tax, etc.

Austria and 1

OOO Korea Co., Ltd. shall be borne by them.

Cheong-gu Office

Until the business year 2009, for POO Korea Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "company").

section of the corporate tax of 000 won and the corporate tax of 2010

Each disposition of imposition of 000 won for underreporting shall be revoked.

There is a difference between the actual inventory and the electronic inventory as claimed by the Lao.

B) In the case of the Plaintiff Ora, 2008, 17 times in February 2009, total of 368,000,000 won

The processing expenses up to the book have been included in the book, and the number of times and amount are high.

C) In the case of Plaintiff OA, the difference in the calculated global income tax due to appropriation of processing expenses

68,250,000 won (=calculated tax amount of 87,759,913 won) - Reported tax amount of 19,509,313

b) 60,550,000 won (=calculated tax amount of 108,796,479 won) - Reported tax amount of 60,550,000

It reaches 48,246,479 won.

D) In the case of the Plaintiff Company, “actual inventory and computerized inventory over the business year 2009, 2010.”

Expenses for maintaining vehicles deemed unrelated to the adjustment of differences and for processing in the name of the printing expenses for books;

shall be included in the Act.

E) In the case of the Plaintiff Company, the processing expenses up to 1,987,117,290 won in total over 812 times in the year 2009, 2010 were appropriated in the account book, and such false bookkeeping is deemed to have been continued and repeated.

F) In the case of the Plaintiff Company, the difference in the calculated corporate tax due to appropriation of processing expenses 2009

14,838,193 won for each business year (=169,164,433 won of the corrected tax amount - The reported tax amount

54,326,240 won, 322,327,610 won for the business year 2010 (=calculated tax amount of 1,301,650,309 won - new

It reaches the calculated tax amount of KRW 979,322,69.

G) The Plaintiffs shall specify the column for processing expenses or prohibit the processing expenses.

The amount was expressed to 1 won unit, and from 2009 to 2010, it did not focus on a specific date.

In this case, the tax authorities have subdivided and appropriated processing expenses. In such a case, the tax authorities shall submit them.

As long as evidence and daily evidence are not considered large, it is difficult to grasp the appropriation of processing expenses.

3) Therefore, each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate, and the plaintiffs' assertion on different premise is justified.

shall not be held.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, Plaintiff OA’s claim against Defendant Samsung Head of the tax office and Plaintiff OOO

Since Korea’s claim against Defendant Gangnam-gu Tax Office is without merit, it is dismissed in entirety.

It is so decided as per Disposition.

Samsung Head of Samsung Tax Office and 1

All claims against the director of the Gangnam Tax Office shall be dismissed.

2. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff A and the Defendant Samsung Head of the tax office is assessed against the Plaintiff OA.

The portion arising between the Plaintiff’s OO Korea and the Head of Gangnam Tax Office shall be borne.

The head of Samsung Tax Office’s global income tax on April 15, 2014, extended to Plaintiff OA on April 15, 201, on the global income tax for the year 2008

illegal underreporting tax amounting to KRW 000 and the global income tax for 2009

The imposition of additional tax of KRW 000 shall be revoked. The head of Gangnam-gu Tax Office on April 14, 2014

October 23, 2015

November 27, 2015

1. The claim by the plaintiff OA against the defendant Samsung director of the tax office and the plaintiff OO Korea

1. Details of the disposition;

A. As to the Plaintiff OA

1) After completing the business registration with the trade name of "OO", the plaintiff OOOOOOO operated the cosmetic wholesale and retail business from April 19, 2006 to 2009.

2) The head of the Defendant Samsung District Tax Office corrected and notified each of the above amounts on the ground that “the Plaintiff included the processing costs of KRW 195,000,000 from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2008, and KRW 173,000,000 from January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2009” without proof, and the above amount was not included in necessary expenses and the amount was also included in the global income tax amount of KRW 173,00,000 from April 15, 2014 (including the illegal under-reported additional tax amount of KRW O, etc.), the OO of global income tax for the tax year 2009 (including the illegal under-reported under-reported additional tax of KRW 1,00,000 for each of the above imposition of global income tax (hereinafter referred to as “an imposition of tax for under-reported under-reported return”).

3) On June 11, 2014, Plaintiff Ora filed an appeal on June 11, 2014, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the said appeal on February 2, 2015.

B. As to the Plaintiff Company

1) The Plaintiff Company was established on August 5, 2009, and Plaintiff OA works as the representative director, and runs a wholesale and retail business of cosmetics as a corporation.

2) From January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2009, the head of Gangnam District Tax Office, without evidence, appropriated 39,865,000 won for vehicle maintenance expenses, 220,000,000 won for sales commission, 14,80,000,000 won for books, 247,326,790 won for sales promotion expenses, 247,326,790 won for 247,326,790 won for sales promotion expenses, and 70,00,00,00,000 won for vehicle maintenance expenses, and 19,742,000,000 won for books, 30,000 won for sales promotion expenses, and 20,000,000 won for each of the above under-reported additional taxes for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for each business year including the above-reported under-reported additional taxes for 2014.

3) On June 12, 2014, the Plaintiff Company dissatisfied with the imposition of an unfair under-reported additional tax, and filed an appeal on June 12, 2014, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the said appeal on February 2, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including the relevant branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

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

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The plaintiffs mainly sold cosmetics through home shopping, and there are goods sold at the time of the sale of other goods or exchanged with the goods returned and disposed of, and thus, the actual inventory and electronic data inventory are inconsistent. The plaintiffs recognized the horse inventory based on the actual inventory, and thus, the prices of the goods released including the above so-called so-called "the cost of sales" had already been reflected in the sales cost, but the accounting officer of the plaintiffs should deal with the sales cost in the form of sales commission, etc. In so doing, they deal with double expenses. As such, the plaintiffs did not actively engage in any unlawful act by receiving the processed tax invoice from data or preparing false evidence, etc., and did not have the purpose of evading taxes against the plaintiffs. Thus, the plaintiffs' inclusion of the processed expenses that the plaintiffs did not prove in the books alone in the calculation of the tax base and tax amount in an unjust manner.

Accordingly, each of the dispositions of this case is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) According to Articles 47-3(2)1 and 47-2(2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 9911, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter the same) and Article 27(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22038, Feb. 18, 2010); (1) a taxpayer violates the duty to report the tax base or amount of national tax on the basis of concealing or pretending all or part of the fact that serves as the basis for calculating the tax base or amount of national tax; (2) a false entry of books, such as preparation of false evidence or false documents (hereinafter referred to as "false evidence, etc."); (3) a person who receives false evidence knowing that it is; (5) a person who conceals assets or manipulates income, profit-making, transactions, or conceals an amount equivalent to one under-reported or under-reported tax base (hereinafter referred to as "unfairly underreported tax base") by means of an unlawful or under-reported tax base.

Meanwhile, in a case where the return of the tax base by unlawful means, which is the requirement for an unfair under-reported additional tax under Article 47-3(2)1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, is filed by such unlawful means as making it difficult to discover the taxation requirement of the national tax or forging false facts, and such under-reported return derived from the purpose of tax evasion, such as avoiding the progressive tax rate and the application of the provisions on losses carried forward (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Du12362, Nov. 28, 2013). 2) In light of the above legal provisions and legal principles as seen earlier, the Plaintiffs’ act is difficult to discover the taxation requirement by means of “False entry” or “an act of manipulating the income, profit, act, transaction, or concealment, etc.” and the purpose of tax evasion is to recognize that the Plaintiffs were the purpose of tax evasion, and thus, the Plaintiffs’ act should be deemed as the Plaintiff’s tax base for each of the unlawful under-reported tax year 2008, respectively.

A) In the case of Plaintiff OA’s processed expenses of KRW 195,00,00 in the name of the sales commission for the year 2008, the cost indicated in the red column is either “the payment of telephone and telegraph charge” or “transport cost”, which is either “the payment of telephone and telegraph charge” or “transport cost.”