early 2009 Heavy1476 ( December 29, 2010)

The amount of sales received by selling the right to permanent use of a charnel to the buyer is attributed to the income in the business year to which the date of receipt of the consideration belongs.

The inclusion of the right to permanent use of a charnel in the gross income for the business year which includes the date of the payment for the sale to the purchaser shall be lawful, and the sales agency fee paid to the business members shall not be recognized because personal information, such as resident registration numbers and contact information, is not verified.

2011Revocation of disposition of imposing corporate tax, etc.

The report 】 Theacademy 】

Head of the High Tax Office

September 18, 2012

October 23, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 000 of corporate tax for the business year 2005 and KRW 000 of corporate tax for the business year 2006 against the Plaintiff on December 1, 2008 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff paid 200 won, 2005, 2006, and 000 won under a sales agency contract to sales employees under the trade name of "DDD DD DD DD DD D DD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DD (hereinafter referred to as "the Dd D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D,"), and reported corporate tax for the business year 2005 and 2006 on the basis of the D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D's sales amount received from both of the D D D D D D D D D D D D D, and 006.

B. The Defendant, by deeming that the Plaintiff’s right to permanently use a charnel was sold to the buyer, included the sales price of a charnel in the gross income for the business year in which the date of receipt was included, and among the employees of the business that the Plaintiff paid the sales agency fees, the sales agency fees for a person whose personal information such as resident registration number is confirmed shall be included in the deductible expenses for the year 2005 and the remaining sales agency fees for the year 2005 (=00 won -00 won) and the remaining sales agency fees for the year 2006 (=00 won -00 won) were denied, and on December 1, 2008, the Plaintiff corrected and notified the sales agency fees for the business year 2005 and corporate tax for the business year 2006 (hereinafter “the first disposition”).

C. Since then, the Defendant: (a) included the total amount of a charnel house refunded by the Plaintiff to some buyers; (b) KRW 000 in 2005; and (c) KRW 000 in 206; and (c) re-revision and notification of corporate tax for the business year 2005 and KRW 000 in 2006 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on September 10, 2012.

[Grounds for Recognition] 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, and 8, 1, and 8, 2, 1, and 2 respectively, and 1, and 2, 3, 3, and 36.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case by the defendant is unlawful for the following reasons and should be revoked.

(1) Claim regarding the time when the sale price reverts

The period of establishment of a charnel in this case shall be 15 years, which is the 15-year period during which the use is terminated, and the plaintiff has received the purchase price in consideration of the right to use a charnel for 15 years from the adopted children, and only 1/15 of the purchase price shall be included in the gross income for each business year

(2) Claim regarding the sales agency fee of the instant case

Although the instant business members consisting of several teams, the sales agency fees were paid without ascertaining the specific personal information, and the Plaintiff was unable to operate the sales agency without the sales agency through the business members in operating the instant charnel as a religious organization. Therefore, the sales agency fees of the instant sales agency should be included in the calculation of losses as it actually paid to the business members.

(3) The assertion about the sale price refunded to the buyer

The total amount of a charnel house sold to some buyers who have been cancelled from a membership contract shall be included in the deductible expenses in excess of 00 won.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes shall be as follows.

C. Determination

(1) As to the assertion on the timing of attribution of the sale price

In light of the following circumstances recognized by comprehensively considering the following circumstances, the Plaintiff’s right to permanently use charnel houses and the entire purport of evidence Nos. 9 through 13, and evidence No. 3, and the Plaintiff’s inclusion in the calculation of earnings for the business year in which the Defendant received the price is lawful. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion on a different premise is without merit.

(A) Although the terms and conditions on the establishment and management of the instant charnel, Article 5 of the Management Rules concerning the removal and refund of charnels under Article 5 of the Regulations on the Establishment, Management, etc. of Facilities, the above provisions are provided under the premise that the contract for the permanent lease is waived, and Article 2 of the "Written Agreement for the Establishment, etc. of the instant charnels" provides that "B (person who purchases a house in this case) shall complete the amount of use of the Central Memorial Park, obtain a urnment, and preserve the remains of the deceased," and Article 6 (1) of the Terms and Conditions on the Establishment, Management, etc. of the said "A" provides that "A (person who purchases a house in this case) shall pay the user's right to use the memorial hall permanently and for five years," and Article 7 of the said Terms and Conditions provide that each user of the instant charnel shall be entitled to deposit the permanent salary plan in principle.

(B) Unlike 4) in the case of a charnel, there is no limit on the duration of a charnel.

(C) Under the Civil Act, permanent rental agreements are not recognized, and in principle, their duration shall not exceed 20 years.

(2) As to the assertion on the sales agency fee of the instant case

납세의무자가 신고한 어느 비용 중의 일부 금액이 실지비용이냐 아니냐가 다투어지고 과세관청에 의해 납세의무자 측이 주장하는 비용의 용도와 지급의 상대방이 허 위임이 상당한 정도로 입증되었고， 납세의무자가 신고내역대로의 비용지출은 아님을 시인하면서 같은 금액만큼의 다른 무엇인가의 비용 소요사실이 있었다고 주장하는 이 상 그 신고비용과 다른 비용의 존재와 액수에 관하여는 구체적 비용지출 사실에 관한 장부기장과 증빙 등 일체의 자료를 제시하기가 용이한 납세의무자 측에서 이를 입증할 필요가 있다고 보아야 할 것이다(대법원 1995. 7. 14. 선고 94누3407 판결， 1992. 3. 27. 선고 91누12912 판결 참조). 위와 같은 법리에 따라 이 사건에 관하여 보건대， 원고가 제출한 갑 제14 내지 26호증의 각 기재(가지번호가 있는 경우 각 가지번호 포함) 및 증인 오QQ의 증언은， 을 제2호증， 을 제6호증의 1， 2의 각 기재 및 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정틀에 비추어， 이를 그대로 믿기 어렵거나 원고가 실제 이 사건 분양 대행수수료를 영업사원들에게 지급하였다는 원고의 위 주장을 인정하기 부족하고， 달리 이를 인정할 만한 증거가 없다. 따라서 원고가 입증하지 못한 이 사건 분양대행수수료에 대하여 피고가 손금 부인한 것은 적법하므로， 이와 다른 전제에서 한 원고의 위 주장도 이유 없다.

(A) The Plaintiff did not enter the instant sales agency fee in the account book or withhold the pertinent sales agency fee from the business employees.

(B) The members of the business who the Plaintiff asserted as the recipient of the sales agency fee of this case are not identified in their resident registration numbers and contact numbers. The allowance statement submitted by the Plaintiff states that the transaction with the above members was conducted over a number of times and that the amount of the allowance is not specified. It is difficult to readily understand that the Plaintiff did not know all his personal information despite the transaction on the above scale.

(3) The assertion about the sale price refunded to the buyer

Pursuant to the foregoing light, the health stand in this case, and the Plaintiff did not submit supporting documents regarding the amount of refund for the business year 2005 and 2005 other than the total amount of 000 won in 2006 and the amount of refund for the business year 2006 prior to the recognition of the trend of the amount of refund for the sales price. Accordingly, the Defendant’s rejection of the portion other than the recognized amount of refund as above is somewhat weak, and the Plaintiff’s assertion on the other premise is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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