Appropriateness of the disposition not to include necessary expenses in the processed tax invoice

Items of the actual transaction details and data amount of the written confirmation of the fact of transaction shall be written only in color, and the portion of the original document is inconsistent with the testimony of the recipient of the order and is inconsistent with the plaintiff's assertion. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the actual transaction was made

Article 27 (Calculation of Necessary Expenses)

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff shall bear the litigation costs.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 11,773,730 of global income tax against the Plaintiff on 09.01.01 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

(a) The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be admitted in each entry in Gap evidence 1-1 and 2 together with the overall purport of the pleadings:

(1) The Plaintiff, a business operator operating a clothing source export business under the trade name of ○○○○○-dong ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ in ○○○○○-dong, was subject to business registration (number: ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○) during the first taxable period of 2000, after receiving a purchase tax invoice of KRW 24.9 million (hereinafter “the instant tax invoice”) from the supply value from ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and included the said supply value in the necessary expenses when filing a return of the comprehensive income tax for 200 years.

(2) The Defendant received a notice from the head of ○○○○ Tax Office, the head of ○○○○○, that the instant tax invoice was issued and issued on the basis of the fact that it was issued and issued without a real transaction. On October 01, 2005, the Defendant: (a) determined the global income tax amount of KRW 21,413,062 (including penalty tax of KRW 5,626,732 + penalty tax of KRW 15,786,30 + penalty tax of KRW 5,626,732); and (b) additionally notified the remainder of global income tax of KRW 11,773,730 (=21,413,062 –9,639,639,30), which was the global income tax amount of KRW 9,639,30, which was the amount of tax paid from the said tax amount.

(3) The Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on December 05, 2005. However, the Commissioner of the National Tax Service dismissed the said request on March 17, 2006.

B. Therefore, the instant disposition is subject to the imposition of KRW 21,413,062 on global income tax on the date of October 01, 2005. However, the Plaintiff sought revocation of the said additional notice exceeding KRW 9,639,330 on the grounds that the Plaintiff seeks to revoke the said additional notice. Thus, the part regarding the imposition of the said additional notice is subject to the instant disposition.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff ordered Cho○-○ to engage in a chrographing yarn, and Cho○-○ issued a tax invoice for the issuance of Kim○-○ as if he actually supplied the Plaintiff, while he supplied the Plaintiff with the original intention in color. Therefore, the instant tax disposition, based on the premise that no real transaction was made with respect to the goods on the instant tax invoice, was unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

[Income Tax]

Article 27 (Calculation of Necessary Expenses)

(1) In calculating real estate rental income, business income, temporary property income, other income, or forest income, the amount to be included in necessary expenses shall be the sum of expenses corresponding to the total amount of income in the relevant year, which is generally accepted.

(2) The expenses corresponding to the total amount of income before the current year, which are not appropriated as the necessary expenses before the current year, shall be considered the necessary expenses.

(3) Matters necessary for calculation of necessary expenses shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

C. Determination

(1) In the administrative litigation seeking the revocation of taxation on the ground of the illegality of taxation disposition, in principle, the tax authority bears the burden of proving the legality of taxation disposition and the existence of the taxation requirement. Therefore, in principle, the tax authority bears the burden of proving necessary expenses, which are the basis of the determination of taxable income. However, since necessary expenses are only favorable to the taxpayer, and the facts constituting the basis of necessary expenses are most within the control area of the taxpayer, and thus the tax authority is difficult to prove. Thus, if it is reasonable to have the taxpayer prove the burden of proving the burden of tax in consideration of the difficulty of proof or equity between the parties, it should be returned to the taxpayer. Therefore, if it is proved that the tax invoice on some of the expenses reported by the taxpayer was prepared by the defendant who is the tax authority without real transactions, and it is proved that the taxpayer's party to the payment was false, and if it is proved that the other party to the tax payment was actually paid, it is necessary to prove that it is easy for the taxpayer to present all the data, such as the book keeping and evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu26.

(2) In this case, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was supplied with the goods by Cho○○ as to the transaction on the instant tax invoice and received only the said tax invoice as an issuance of Kim○○. Therefore, the Plaintiff needs to prove that there was a real transaction corresponding to the instant tax invoice.

(3) However, there is evidence that the Plaintiff actually purchased the goods specified in the tax invoice of this case, and there is evidence Nos. 2-1, 3-1, 3-1, and 13, and witness ○○○’s testimony. As seen below, it is difficult to believe the witness ○○’s testimony and other evidence alone are insufficient to recognize the fact of the said transaction, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

(A) No. 2-1 of the evidence No. 2-1 is a written confirmation of the fact of the transaction of ○○○’s assistance, and the fact that Cho○○ is influoring originals at Kim○○’s salt mal, and the delivery of the tax invoice to the Plaintiff was made only by issuing Kim○○○. Although Cho○ appears in the court of this case as a witness of the instant case and testified that the details of the transaction in the instant tax invoice are about chlouds. However, although the content of the actual transaction and the amount of the material in the said written confirmation of the transaction are written only about chlouds, the portion of the “raws” is inconsistent with the testimony of Cho○○ because it is inconsistent with the Plaintiff’s assertion, it is insufficient to view that the said written confirmation of the transaction as a material that there was the Plaintiff’

(B) The evidence No. 3-1 to No. 13 is the export declaration certificate that the plaintiff reported and issued to ○○ Customs in exporting clothes, etc., and according to the above export declaration certificate, the plaintiff exported goods equivalent to 13 cases from January 21, 200 to December 23, 2009, and 71,345,483 won in total, and the declared price (FOB). Meanwhile, according to the evidence No. 1, the plaintiff's business income in 200 can be acknowledged as constituting 1,311,40,222. The above export declaration certificate is only the data that the plaintiff exported the goods, and it is not related to the expenses incurred in manufacturing the above export goods, and there is no evidence to conclude that the plaintiff's business income in the above export goods was less than 1,300,000 won in the tax invoice of this case, and there is no evidence to conclude that there was no expense in the tax invoice of this case and there is no reason to conclude that the tax invoice of this case.

(C) The testimony of the witness ○○○ cannot be trusted in light of the following facts.

1) Since 190, 194 through 1996, ○○ was engaged in salt coloring business, and closed down around 1994 through 1996, and was requested by the Plaintiff to purchase the instant tax invoice, he directly purchased the original yarn, and was entrusted with coloring only to Kim○○. In addition to the Plaintiff’s request for salt coloring, she did not have been entrusted with salting up to the date of closure. As such, ○○ directly purchased the instant raw yarn from a company that was traded at the time of the previous salting business, and then the purchase of the original raw yarn was merely a single case, but it did not disclose at all the cost of its original purchase and transaction.

2) The Plaintiff, as a manufacturer and manufacturer of the garment group, has a variety of transaction offices for the purchase of garment group and the color of garment group. From around 194 to 1996, 4 years and 6 years have already passed since the closure of chroping business and failed to operate the business, and it is difficult to understand that ○○ requested a transaction under the instant tax invoice to the Plaintiff, who did not engage in any transaction before and after the transaction.

(4) Therefore, the instant disposition that the Plaintiff received without any actual transaction corresponding to the instant tax invoice is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.