[Request Number] National Court Decision 2003J3282 ( March 16, 2004)
[Items] Cancellation of Income [Types of Determination]
[Determination-Making and summary of the product] The purchase amount was denied as necessary expenses, but it is recognized that the product was purchased considering the details of the financial transaction and the cost increase for the product to be handled.
[Calculation of Expenses for Special Cases Concerning Special Cases Concerning the Income Tax] Article 27 of the Income Tax Act / Calculation of Expenses for Real Estate Rental Income, etc.
The disposition of imposition by the head of the OOO on August 1, 2003 by the 2001 applicant shall be revoked.
1. Summary of disposition;
The claimant received nine copies of purchase tax invoices equivalent to the supply value of the OO (hereinafter referred to as "market tax invoices") from business operators engaging in advertising agency business, and from OO (hereinafter referred to as "OO") during the period of February 28 through 11.30, 2001, and filed a comprehensive income tax return by including the purchase amount in the necessary expenses for the relevant business year.
On August 1, 2003, the disposition agency recognized the issue tax invoice as a processing tax invoice without real transaction, and issued a notice of correction of the global income tax OOO won for the claimant in 2001.
The claimant is dissatisfied with this and filed a petition for trial on October 28, 2003.
2. Opinions of the claimant and disposition agency;
A. The claimant's assertion
Despite the fact that the representative of the key transaction office in business registration is a branch office, but it is confirmed that the actual business operator of the key transaction office has traded with the POO (the person of the branch office) who actually operated the business and has deposited part of the transaction amount into the bank account of POO, the disposition agency is improper to dispose of this case that the purchase amount of the tax invoice is not recognized as necessary expenses for the reason that the actual business operator of the key transaction office is the POO (the punishment of POO) and the transaction amount has not been verified as to whether the transaction amount has been received to the key transaction office.
(b) Opinions of disposition agencies;
Although the claimant asserts that part of the price of the goods for the key transaction place was deposited in an account under the name of POO, it is not confirmed whether he/she received the amount of money deposited at the key transaction place, and since the detailed statement of transaction and the deposit statement may be prepared arbitrarily as data normally prepared when he/she receives the tax invoice, it is reasonable to regard the issue tax invoice as the processing tax invoice, and to dispose of this case that did not recognize the amount of money
3. Hearing and determination
A. Key issue
The propriety of the disposition imposing tax by denying the purchase amount as necessary expenses by deeming the issue tax invoice as a processed material.
(b) Related statutes;
Article 27 of the Income Tax Act (1) The amount to be included in the necessary expenses in the calculation of real estate rental income amount, business income amount, temporary property income amount, other income amount or forest income shall be the sum of the expenses corresponding to the total income amount in the current year which
Article 55 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (Calculation of necessary expenses for real estate rental income and business income)
1. Purchase price (excluding a purchase reduction or a purchase discount) of the raw materials for the commodities or products sold and the incidental expenses thereto. In this case, the original purchase price and incidental expenses thereto shall be applicable, if the relevant business operator has consumed such ones for a business use, as have been purchased for other purposes;
C. Facts and determination
(1) The claimant filed a return on the total income tax for 2001 with the amount of the revenue of 2001 as the OOO, the necessary OOO, and the amount of the revenue of 2001 as the OOO, and the disposition agency denied the purchase amount of the tax invoice as necessary expenses, thereby correcting the amount of the income as the OOO, thereby imposing this case’s income tax. This is confirmed by the global income tax revision resolution.
(2) According to the data survey conducted by the head of the OOO tax office on the issues of this transaction, it is deemed that OO was registered under his own name as the trade name of OOO on May 30, 1993, and that it was reported on July 20, 2001 under the trade name of OOO under his own her own her own her own her own her own her own her own her own her own her own her own her own her own her own her own her own her own her mother as the trade name of OOOO on April 12, 2002.
In addition, it is presumed that the actual business operator's entry and withdrawal of the head of Tong established under the name of the borrower during the period of July 10 to April 12, 2002, 198, and that the head of POO only recognized that the amount corresponding to the sales tax invoice out of the total amount of the printing price for the advertisement is the actual sales, and that the head of OO who deducts that amount from the total amount of the sales tax invoice issued by OO is denied sales by failing to produce documentary evidence related to the real transaction, and that the head of OO was deposited by four other than OO (OO, gO, zO, zOO, zOO, and HaO) is paid in cash, but it is not possible to verify the place of sales due to the lack of documentary evidence.
(3) According to the statement of transactions and deposit sheet presented by the claimant, the key company in the transaction is to supply promotional items and event souvenirs, such as key studio, gold box, gymp, pentine, thyp, type-type, cosmetic, cosmetic, etc. during the period of February 28 through 11.30, 201, and the key company receives the price, and the representative branch office of the key company confirms the fact of the transaction ( January 26, 2003).
(4) According to the certificate of deposit(11) confirmed by the head of the OO bank's OO bank's OO bank's OO bank's account (Account NumberO) during the period of January 18, 2001 to 5.30, it is confirmed that OO's telephone transfer was made by a telephone transfer from the applicant's bank account (Account NumberO).
(5) In full view of the above facts, the claimant argued that he traded with the POO of the POO trading office. While investigating the POO trading office, it is presumed that the amount deposited by the POO and four other parties is paid in cash, but it is not possible to confirm the sales office, and that the claimant denied the sales. The claimant deposited the PO won into the POO's deposit account in the POO trading office during the tax year of this case. In light of the fact that the income amount is 34% or more of the sales amount if the claimant denies the purchase amount of the PO, it is reasonable to view that the claimant purchased the goods and received the tax invoice from the POO trading office and received the PO.
Therefore, this case's disposition, which the disposition agency regarded the issue tax invoice as the processing tax invoice and denied the purchase amount as necessary expenses, is erroneous.
Since this case's petition for adjudication is deemed to be well-grounded as a result of the review, it shall be decided as ordered in accordance with Articles 81 and 65(1)3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes.