Changwon District Court 2012Guhap1004, 2012

National Tax Service Review Corporation 201-0050 ( December 30, 2011), National Tax Service Review Corporation

The burden of proof for the extra cost that is reasonably proved to be false is on the part of the taxpayer.

As long as it is proved that expenses have been proved to be false and that there has been a fact that the taxpayer had the same amount of expenses, it is necessary for the taxpayer to prove that it is easy to produce data, such as the recording of the account of specific expenses and evidence concerning the existence and amount of other expenses.

(C)The revocation of the disposition of imposing corporate tax;

AAAAA tax accounting corporation

Head of Changwon Tax Office

Changwon District Court Decision 2012Guhap1004 Decided July 12, 2012

May 30, 2013

July 18, 2013

1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the Plaintiff falling under the order of revocation shall be revoked. The part exceeding KRW 000 of the disposition imposing corporate tax belonging to the business year 2008 against the Plaintiff on June 1, 201 and the part imposing corporate tax belonging to the business year 2009, which exceeds KRW 000,000, shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. 80% of the total litigation costs shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder 20% by the Defendant, respectively.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall revoke on June 1, 201 the part exceeding KRW 000 of the corporate tax belonging to the business year 2008, the corporate tax belonging to the business year 2009, and the corporate tax belonging to the business year 2009, and the corporate tax belonging to the business year 2000 won belonging to the business year 2010.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a tax accounting corporation that provides services such as filing tax returns, filing applications, and filing claims on behalf of the Plaintiff.

B. From March 9, 2011 to April 12, 2011, the Commissioner of Busan Regional Tax Office conducted a general consolidated investigation with the Plaintiff, and notified the Defendant of the correction and notification of corporate tax for the Plaintiff’s improper expenses and omitted sales, and the Defendant issued a notice to the Plaintiff on June 1, 201, each of the increased corporate tax amount of KRW 000 (=000 +000 +000) to which the corporate tax on the Plaintiff for the business year 2008 (the date of April 1, 2007, 2000 + the increased corporate tax from March 31, 2009 (from April 1, 2008 to March 31, 2009) was imposed with each of the increased corporate tax of KRW 00 to KRW 300 (00 + the corporate tax from March 31, 200) to 300 to 30.10 (200).

C. The Plaintiff filed a request for review on September 7, 201, and received a decision of dismissal from the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on December 30, 2011.

[Based on Recognition] The identification of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion is as follows.

1) The amount of 0000 wages in arrears in 2007 paid by the Plaintiff to OO by the head of the office tight branch office of the Plaintiff and the amount of 0000 retirement allowances in 2008 should be included in deductible expenses.

2) From 2007 to 2009, the Plaintiff paid 0000 won each year, including 000 won after the completion of the corporate settlement and 000 won after the completion of the corporate settlement at the end of March, and 000 won after the completion of the corporate settlement at the end of May, and paid 000 won each year to the OO of the Plaintiff’s original office, including 000 won after the completion of the corporate settlement and 000 won after the completion of the corporate settlement at the end of March, and each of the above expenses should be included as losses.

3) Around 2008, the Plaintiff spent KRW 000 on-site supervision and supervision services costs during the field supervision and supervision services, located in Seongdong-gu OOO located in Seongdong-gu, Sungwon-gu, 2000, and such costs should be included in deductible expenses.

(b) Related statutes;

Attachment 'Related Acts and subordinate statutes' shall be as shown.

C. Determination

1) Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion No. 2. A.1

The plaintiff agreed to pay 000 won in arrears with OO, the office manager of the plaintiff's smuggling, to pay 000 won in arrears with OO in March 2008, and 000 won out of the above 000 won can be recognized as a retirement allowance occurred in 2008. According to the above facts, the above OO should be included in deductible expenses for the business year of 2007, and the above 000 won in arrears should be included in deductible expenses for the business year of 2007, and the above 000 won in retirement allowance should be included in deductible expenses for the business year of 2008. Thus, the plaintiff's argument was justified.

2) Determination as to the Plaintiff’s allegation No. 2. A. 2

In an administrative litigation seeking revocation of a taxation disposition on the ground of its illegality, the tax authority bears the burden of proof in principle with respect to the existence of the legality and taxation requirement of the disposition, but with respect to the existence of special circumstances in light of the empirical rule, the tax authority bears the burden of proof or burden of proof with respect to the taxpayer. Therefore, in principle, the tax authority bears the burden of proof with respect to the amount of expenses to be included in the calculation of deductible expenses which are the tax base of corporate tax, and the taxpayer bears the burden of proof with respect to the taxpayer considering the balance between the parties, etc., if the burden of proof with respect to the specific items of expenses arises, and if the taxpayer does not dispute whether some of the expenses reported by the taxpayer are actual expenses, the tax authority has proved that the other party to the tax payment was false, and the taxpayer did not have any other requirement of proof with respect to the above amount, and if the taxpayer did not have any other requirement of proof with respect to the existence and amount of the expenses, it is difficult to prove that there was no other requirement of proof between the plaintiff and the 206.3.

3) Determination as to the Plaintiff’s allegation No. 2. A. 3

The plaintiff, on September 25, 2008, ordered on-site supervision and supervision services to 100 won in the calculation of losses, and 100 won in the calculation of losses between 5, 6, 1, 2, and 5 through 7, and the plaintiff, on September 25, 2008, could not be considered as having been included in the calculation of losses in the calculation of losses because the plaintiff's total amount of 000 won was paid from October 29 to 27, 2010, and 100 won was not included in the calculation of losses between the plaintiff and 200 won, and 00 won was not included in the calculation of losses between 1, 200 won and 00 won, and 00 won was not included in the calculation of losses between the tax office and 00 other than the value-added tax, and the plaintiff cannot be considered as having been included in the calculation of losses.

(d) Justifiable tax amount.

As recognized in paragraph 2.(c)(1) above, the amount of tax calculated by adding the overdue wages of 0000 and retirement allowances of 0000 won to deductible expenses in calculating the tax base for each business year, and the corporate tax for the business year of 2008 shall be 000 won, and the corporate tax for the business year of 2009 shall be 00 won (=000 won-000 won-000 won). Therefore, the portion exceeding the above reasonable tax amount in the disposition in this case should be revoked illegally, and the plaintiff's assertion is with merit only for that part.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking revocation of the above portion of the disposition of this case, which exceeds the above legitimate tax amount, is justified, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. The part against the plaintiff, which exceeds the above legitimate tax amount in the judgment of the court of first instance, is unfair, and it is so revoked, and the remaining appeal of the plaintiff is dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition.