Whether there is the amount of income disposal to the plaintiff

It is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff was attributed to the Plaintiff or the ownership of the land is unclear since the fact was confirmed to have been paid to the land owner.

Article 19 of the Corporate Tax Act, Article 106 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act

2016Guhap20365 global income and revocation of such disposition

KimA

BB Director of the Tax Office

September 9, 2016

October 7, 2016

1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of global income tax for 2014. XX. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of global income tax for the Plaintiff 2012 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a representative director ofCC Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “instant company”) who is engaged in chartered bus transportation business from XX. 2010 to XX. 2013. From XX. 2013, the Plaintiff served as the representative director for the company of this case. XX. to XX. 2013.

B. From December 16, 2013 to January 15, 2014, the head of the DD Tax Office conducted a tax investigation on corporate tax for the 2012-year business year of the instant company, and confirmed the omitted amount of transportation income, 249, the wage class, the wage class, the income class, the total of 333, the wage class, the wage class, and the wage class, and notified the Defendant of the changes in the amount of income by treating the income as the representative of the Plaintiff, on the ground that: (a) from among the transportation income reported through re-investigation from March 18, 2014 to March 27, 2014, the 108, the wage class, the wage class, the wage class, the wage class, and the wage class, and the remaining transportation income corresponding to the omitted amount, the wage class, the wage class, the income class, the total of the wage class, the wage class, the wage class, the wage class, and the wage class.

C. Accordingly, the Defendant corrected and notified the Plaintiff of the global income tax 81, the wage class, the wage class, the wage class, and the wage class (hereinafter “instant disposition”) for the year 2012.

D. Upon receipt of an objection, the Plaintiff filed a request for the tax appeal at XX. tax appeal on 2015, and the Tax Tribunal made the request.

In XX. 2015, whether the instant company reported the amount of income at the time of the corporate tax return for the business year 2012, including the transportation revenue of the input vehicle, whether the instant company reported the purchase cost for the sales revenue of the input vehicle as deductible expenses, and whether the purchase cost for the sales revenue at the time of the said report was included in deductible expenses, and whether the tax base and tax amount were corrected according to the results of re-audit by re-audit of the revenue and expenditure details of the account in the name of KimE, an employee of the instant company

E. After re-inspection, the Defendant sent notice of the result of re-inspection that the instant disposition is justifiable on the ground that: (a) the part that was determined as the amount of omission of import at the time of investigating the part of the corporate tax x. the Plaintiff, consisting of the revenues from transportation and management expenses of vehicles directly operated by the Plaintiff; and (b) there is no revenue from the vehicle; and (c) the purchase cost of the vehicle is not included in the amount of expenses and the higher amount is recognized as personnel expenses; and (d) the wage ratio would be inappropriate because the higher amount is recognized as the personnel expenses. In comparison with the daily balance sheet and the account of KimE, the amount that was presumed to have been deposited in the account as the result of the comparison was 107, the daily balance sheet and the account of the vehicle was 108, the foreign source corresponding thereto as the wage source, the wage-based

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1 to 4 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

Since the expenses paid by the Plaintiff to the article articles of 225 vehicles are higher than the bonus disposal by the Defendant to the Plaintiff, it is not subject to the disposition of income. Even if the amount paid as expenses for the article articles of rolling stock cannot be considered as the necessary expenses, the instant company should consider the loss for a multi-year period and adjust the scope of the enemy, and it cannot be deemed as a bonus to the Plaintiff, and thus, the imposition of income tax based on the premise

(2) The defendant's assertion

The personnel expenses for the article of the vehicle shall be unrelated to the revenue amount of the vehicle directly operated by the omitted owner. The company in this case, at the same time, appropriates the operating revenue for the vehicle and appropriate the related expenses in the amount of the management expenses in the gross income, and thus, there is no reason to appropriate the separate personnel expenses for the vehicle into the deductible expenses. As such, since the plaintiff fails to prove that the revenue amount of the vehicle was paid as the personnel expenses, it is reasonable not to include it as the deductible expenses, but to regard it as the bonus for

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act and the proviso of Article 106 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provide that "where it is clear that the amount included in gross income has been released from the company in determining or correcting the tax base of corporate tax, but it is unclear to vest in the representative, it shall be deemed that the amount included in gross income has been reverted to the representative." The recognition contribution system of representative under the Corporate Tax Act is not based on the fact that such income has accrued to the representative, but it aims at allowing the representative to consider certain facts that can be recognized as such act as a bonus to a de facto representative regardless of the substance of the tax law as a bonus (see Supreme Court Decision 92Nu3120, Jul. 14, 1992). In this case, unless the representative proves that the amount included in gross income clearly belongs to himself/herself, he/she shall be liable to pay Gap's income tax regardless of whether it actually reverts to him/her (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2006Da49789, Sept. 18).

In full view of the purport of the arguments, evidence Nos. 4, 6, 7, and 8 of the company of this case, the vehicle of this case is composed of direct vehicles and rolling stock. In the case of passenger transport business, there is no other cargo transport business system, and since profits from rolling stock operation are deposited to the company of this case and after deducting expenses, etc., they are operated by the method of paying vehicle management expenses. The plaintiff argued that the amount of transportation income omitted at the time of re-investigation of the company tax base book was paid as expenses for articles and maintenance, and that the payment confirmation (Evidence No. 4, No. 1, No. 1, No. 2 attached to the above evidence) was submitted to the plaintiff. Since it is difficult to confirm that the 341, No. 2000, No. 341, No. 2000, No. 341, No. 3,000,000,000 won were not included in the above 3,000,000.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and the disposition of this case is revoked.