Changwon District Court-2015-Gu Partnership-21023 ( October 20, 2015)

A revised report on expenses shall be filed with the prior knowledge that it will be corrected and the amount of outflow from the company shall be collected;

It is not recovered from expenses by voluntary efforts, but a revised report is filed with the content that the expenses for the need to be included in the deductible expenses after receiving the revised report and collected the amount equivalent to the processing expenses. In such cases, the disposal of income shall not be deemed as internal reserve because it falls under the case where the amount of the outflow from the company is known

Article 106 (Disposition of Income)

2015Nu11892. Revocation

△△ Co., Ltd.

○ Head of tax office

Changwon District Court Decision 2015Guhap21023 Decided October 20, 2015

2016.04.06

2016.05.04

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

On May 13, 2013, the Defendant revoked the portion of KRW 000,000,000 among the notice of change in income amount of KRW 200,000,000, 201, in which the income earner reported to the Plaintiff on May 13, 2011, and revoked the imposition of KRW 00,000,000 for other income tax (Withholding) reverted to year 201.

2. Purport of appeal

Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the Plaintiff regarding the cancellation of notice of change in income amount below shall be revoked. On May 13, 2013, 201, the part against the Plaintiff regarding the Defendant’s income earner, who was the Plaintiff on May 13, 2011, shall be revoked from the notice of change in income amount of KRW 00,000,000 among the notice of change in income amount

1. Scope of the judgment of this court;

A. In the first instance court, on May 13, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for revocation of the imposition of KRW 000,000,000 among the notice of change in income amount of KRW 000,000,000, the Defendant’s income amount of KRW 200,000,000, and the other income tax of KRW 00,000,00 for the year 201. The first instance court dismissed all the Plaintiff’s claim.

B. As to this, the Plaintiff appealed against the part of the judgment of the first instance against the Plaintiff regarding the cancellation of the notice of change in income amount, the subject of the judgment of this court is limited to the claim to revoke the portion of KRW 000,000,000 among the above notice of change in income amount.

2. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's explanation on this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the dismissal of the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, this court's explanation is acceptable in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

○ The second letter of the judgment of the first instance court " August 13, 2012" in the second letter of the judgment of the second instance is " around September 13, 2012".

009Du9307, Nov. 10, 201, the third part of the judgment of the court of first instance is ".........., the third part of the judgment of the court of first instance" is "(see Supreme Court Decision 2009Du9307, Nov. 201).

○ From 6th to 16th of the judgment of the first instance court is as follows.

2) Therefore, in light of the following circumstances, whether the Plaintiff recovered the instant expenses by voluntary efforts, and the purport of the entire pleadings as a whole, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff received a notice of explanation from the Defendant for taxation data or received a similar notification of explanation of taxation data, and collected the instant expenses after filing a revised return, with the prior knowledge of correction. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s notice of change in the amount of income is justifiable, and thus, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion

① Through the instant guidance, the Defendant: (a) confirmed that the amount of purchase tax invoice received among the expenses included in the Plaintiff’s income statement for the business year 201 and the Plaintiff’s report on the manufacturing cost was KRW 00 billion; (b) among them, the purchase tax invoice was suspected of including KRW 00 billion in the processing cost; and (c) on the ground that the purchase tax invoice was suspected of including KRW 00 billion in the income statement and the manufacturing cost report, the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to submit the details of the receipt of evidentiary documents, such as a statement and tax invoice, as well as the receipt of evidentiary documents.

② This was established on September 2012 by the Defendant: (a) selected 14 corporations as subject to ex post facto verification in accordance with the “Promotion Plan for Follow-Up Inspection of Report” established on September 2012; and (b) revealed that, in the case of the Plaintiff, the purchase tax invoice amount actually received is insufficient than the amount subject to receipt of the tax invoice with respect to the external processing costs, etc. including the instant expenses.

(3) Where a person in charge of written analysis of corporate tax intends to obtain separate explanatory data on the grounds of the findings of the report documents by a corporation as a result of the examination of the report documents, or of errors or omissions in the calculation of income amount or tax amount, he/she shall make a written request (Article 97(1) of the Regulations on the Handling of Corporate Tax). If a taxpayer submits explanatory data according to the above request, he/she shall closely examine and process the details thereof (Article 98(1) of the Regulations on the Handling of Corporate Tax), and where there is any error or omission of income amount or tax amount as a result of written analysis (Article 98(1) of the Regulations on the Handling of Corporate Tax), he/she shall inform the Plaintiff of the revised report with “the guidance on the request for explanation and the revised report through the instant guidance” (Article 98(2) of the same Regulations). However, considering the contents of the instant guidance, the Defendant may be deemed to simultaneously consider the Plaintiff’s request for explanation and the revised report through the instant guidance. Accordingly, the instant guidance constitutes a similar case (proviso 6).

④ The Plaintiff filed a revised report to the effect that the instant expense should be included in deductible expenses after receiving the instant notice, and recovered the amount equivalent to the instant expense from △△△△.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.