Even if the processing expenses were disposed of as provisional receipts, there is no reason to regard the provisional receipts as a nominal obligation not scheduled to reflect the anti-annual system.

Even if the processing expenses of the non-party company were disposed of as provisional receipts, and the provisional receipts were appropriated as provisional receipts, so long as they were appropriated as provisional receipts, it shall not be deemed as provisional receipts which are not scheduled to be anti-presidentials, and it shall not be treated as the profit from debt exemption under the explanation of taxation data, and the assertion that the non-party company did not have been flown out of the company due to no reported fact

Article 40 of the Corporate Tax Act; Article 106 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act

2015Guhap22777. Revocation of notice of change in income amount

AAA, Inc.

BB Director of the Tax Office

on October 17, 2016

on October 31, 2016

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On August 1, 2014, the defendant revoked the notification of change in the amount of income of Korea OOO, OO.O.O.O. for the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 12, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a contract withCC Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Non-Party Co., Ltd.”) for construction works under the OO, OO.O.O.O.O. (including value-added tax) with respect to sales and construction works of sports facilities in Busan DDdong DD 114 and seven parcels.

나. 그런데, 원고는 대출금을 공사대금 외 운영자금으로 사용할 목적으로 소외 회사와 사이에 이 사건 계약의 공사대금을 실제보다 많은 OOO,OOO.OOO원으로 하는 공사도급계약서(갑제1호증의 1)를 작성・제출하였는바, 이후 2010. 5.경부터 이 사건 계약과 관련된 자금이 이QQ(2011. 5. 16. 원고의 사내이사로 등기되었다)의 계좌로 유입되었는데, 이QQ은 위와 같이유입된 자금 중 2010. 6. 7. 및 2010. 10. 7. 각 OO,OOO.OOO원을 현금으로 인출하였고, 2010. 7. 5.부터 2011. 6. 27.까지 합계 OOO,OOO.OOO원을 원고 명의의 계좌에 입금하였으며, 원고는 위와 같이 이QQ의 계좌에서 출금된 돈과 원고 명의의 계좌에 입금된 돈 합계 OOO,OOO.OOO원(= OO,OOO.OOO원 + OOO,OOO.OOO원)을 대표이사에 대한 가수금으로 계상하여 회계처리하여 법인세 신고를 하였다.[원고와 소외 회사는 2010. 12. 30. 다시 공사중단에 따른 발주자의 공사금액 감축 및 설계변경에 따른 업체변경을 이유로 공사대금을 OOO,OOO.OOO원으로 일부 감축한다는 내용이 기재된 공사도급변경계약서(갑 제2호증의 2)를 작성하였다.]

C. The head of the ZZ tax office, which is the head of the non-party company, issued the sales tax invoice prepared by the non-party company in excess of the actual construction price for the plaintiff, after conducting the ex post facto verification of the non-party company's return of corporate tax for the 2010 business year, and confirmed that the non-party company issued the sales tax invoice prepared by the non-party company in excess of the actual construction price for the plaintiff. The non-party company issued the corporate tax and the value-added tax for the processed sales of the non-party company and the corresponding park amount, and notified the non-party company, who is the head of the tax office of the non-party company, to correct the plaintiff's corporate tax and the value-added tax.

D. On July 29, 2014, the Defendant issued a non-deduction decision with respect to the supply price OO, OO, and OO.O.O.O. that reflects the necessary expenses and input tax deduction upon the Plaintiff’s processing of corporate tax and value-added tax return. On August 1, 2014, the Defendant issued a notice of change in income amount (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff, who was the representative director of the Plaintiff at the time of the above BOO, OO.O.O.O.O.O.O., which is the amount including the value-added tax. This is included in the OOO, O.O.O.O.O.O., etc. (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an objection with the Defendant on August 29, 2014, and upon dismissal of the objection, the Tax Tribunal filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on February 5, 2015, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the said claim on April 27, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 10 (where there are provisional numbers, including each of them; hereinafter the same shall apply), Gap evidence Nos. 13 through 15, Gap evidence Nos. 28 through 30, Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff's basic facts stated in paragraph (b) of this Article, including the key amount, shall be treated as a cash that can not be leaked to the representative director because it is not scheduled to give up the counter-or-or-or-or-or-or-or-or-or-or-or-fact system

On December 10, 2013, all of them were used as the company's operating capital. The above provisional amounts were included in the profit from debt exemption by the resolution of the board of directors on December 10, 2013, and then reflected them and reported the corporate tax for the business year 2013. Therefore, even though the issue amount cannot be deemed to have been out of the company, the defendant, merely because the plaintiff dealt with the issue amount as the provisional payment of the representative director, is deemed to have been out of the company to the representative director regardless of whether the money was actually used in the business, and thus, the disposition of this case was taken by the defendant, which

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

Even if a corporation accounts for cash, which is the counterpart account, for which the amount received by the corporation through sales has not been determined, as it was included in the provisional account, and the cash, which is the counterpart account, was entered into the corporation once. If it is found that the content of the provisional account was entered in short-term loan transactions from the representative director and thus, it does not entail any change or increase in the net assets of the corporation and thus, it is irrelevant to the profits or expenses of the corporation. Thus, barring special circumstances, such as the processed debt under the name of the corporation for which the provisional account was not scheduled to be entered in the first half of the year, the omitted sales amount to be entered as the profits of the corporation shall be deemed to have been accrued to the representative director who is the counterpart to the above provisional account (see Supreme Court Decision 200Du3726, Jan. 11, 2002). The same applies to this case where loans are treated as loans.

Meanwhile, in a lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition imposing tax, the burden of proving the facts of taxation requirements should be borne by the imposing authority. However, if it is revealed that the facts of taxation requirements have been presumed in light of the empirical rule in the specific litigation process, it cannot be readily concluded that the other party is an unlawful disposition that fails to meet the taxation requirements, unless the other party proves that the facts in question were not eligible for the application of the empirical rule (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu13894, Jul. 10, 1998).

In light of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff’s 20th anniversary of its short-term loans to major shareholders from 2010 to 2014, it is difficult to find grounds to view that the amount at issue is merely a processing obligation under the name of the Plaintiff’s 20th meeting minutes of December 10, 2013 (Evidence No. 11) that the Plaintiff’s 20th meeting minutes of the 20th meeting did not constitute a nominal obligation. The Plaintiff’s 20th meeting minutes of the 20th meeting of the 20th meeting of the 20th meeting of the 20th meeting of the 20th meeting of the 1st meeting of the 20th meeting of the 20th meeting of the 20th meeting of the 2nd meeting of the 2nd meeting of the 2nd meeting of the 2nd meeting of the 2nd meeting of the 2nd meeting of the 20th meeting of the 2nd meeting of the 2nd meeting of the 2nd meeting of the 2nd meeting of the 2010th meeting.

Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed in entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.