Appellate 201 Books 1592 (No. 30, 2011)

The taxation disposition on the omission of sale and appropriation of processing expenses is legitimate.

It is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff did not report the construction cost paid under the construction contract, and that the Plaintiff failed to submit objective data on the disbursement of personnel expenses, and that the disbursement was revealed as objective data among the Plaintiff’s assertion of expenses out of the amount of expenses outside the scope of expenses has already been ratified as losses, taxation disposition on processing expenses is legitimate.

Article 66 of the Corporate Tax Act, Article 19 of the Corporate Tax Act, Article 26 of the Corporate Tax Act

2012Revocation of disposition of revocation of imposition of corporate tax, etc.

AA Construction Corporation

Kim Jong-soo

August 23, 2012

September 27, 2012

1. We dismiss the part of the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of imposition of Class A earned income tax for the business year 2007, value added tax for the business year 2008, and tax amount for Class A earned income tax for the business year 2008, and tax amount for Class A earned income tax for the same business year.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition disposition of KRW 00 on the Plaintiff on August 4, 2010, the Class A earned income tax for the business year of 2007, the corporate tax for the business year of 2008, the value-added tax for the same business year, and KRW 000 on the Class A earned income tax for the same business year shall be revoked, respectively.

1. Determination on this safety defense

(a)in the case of a taxation under tax-related Acts, it shall undergo the inquiry of the Tax Tribunal, and, if not, it shall not institute an administrative litigation, and the administrative litigation shall be filed within 90 days from the date when the decision of the trial is notified, and it shall be a peremptory period (see Article 56 of the Framework Act on

B. In full view of the purport of the argument in the statement in the statement in the statement in the statement in Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1-2, and Eul evidence 12-1, and Eul evidence 2, the plaintiff filed a request with the Tax Tribunal on each disposition stated in the purport of the claim, and the Tax Tribunal on March 21, 2011, rendered a re-examination decision as to the amount claimed in the extra expense calculation for the business year belonging to "2008", and the other claims of the plaintiff were dismissed. ② The Tax Tribunal sent the decision in this case on September 30, 201 - the dispatch registration number of the case -- the dispatch of the above registration number in the statement No. 3, the above registration number in the statement in the statement in the statement in the statement in the claim, and the plaintiff received the decision in this case from the plaintiff on October 5, 2011, respectively.

C. As to this, the Plaintiff asserted that he received the instant decision at November 5, 2011, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it only with the entries of evidence A 16, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

D. Therefore, among the instant lawsuit brought on October 5, 201, 90 days from October 5, 201 to February 3, 2012, the part pertaining to the imposition of Class A earned income tax for the business year 2007, value added tax 00 won for the business year 2008, and value added tax 000 won for Class A earned income tax for the business year 2008, which belongs to the same business year, was subject to the filing period, and the Defendant’s main defense pointing this out has merit.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. The plaintiff's assertion

For the following reasons, the imposition disposition of the corporate tax of KRW 000 for the business year 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition in this case") should be revoked as it is illegal.

(1) The Plaintiff: (a) around 2008, when the representative director KimF-F-friendly GGG used the Plaintiff’s employees to build a neighborhood living facility building located in the head of the Gu, around 008, to assist the Plaintiff in filing an application for building permission or construction management; but (b) did not receive a contract for the said new construction from the StateGG; (c) the preparation of a contract statement stating the construction cost of KRW 000 to be used by the Plaintiff for filing an application for building permission by the competent administrative agency is for the purpose of assisting the Plaintiff in filing the said application for building permission. However, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff received the said new construction from the StateGG and received the said construction, and deemed that the Plaintiff did not report the sales

(2) In 2008, the defendant considered 00 won actually paid by the plaintiff as the processing cost, etc. for the nominal company's four insurance costs for the nominal company in the business year of 2008 (In addition, the plaintiff asserts that 000 won actually paid by the defendant as the processing cost, and that 00 won should not be included in gross income because the defendant included the above 00 won as the total amount recognized as deductible expenses by going through the tax investigation process, the decision of correction in accordance with the re-audit decision, and the decision of correction in accordance with the re-audit decision).

(b) Details of disposition;

(1) The Plaintiff is a company established on September 25, 2001 and engaged in steel structure manufacturing and installation business, and civil engineering work.

(2) On July 2010, the Defendant conducted a tax offense investigation against the Plaintiff, and reported 200 won to the Plaintiff as processing expenses, and omitted the sales report on 000 won for the construction cost received from the JejuG. The Defendant imposed 000 won of corporate tax for the business year 2008.

(3) On November 1, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the above disposition of imposing corporate tax against the Defendant, and the Defendant issued a decision of correction that reduces KRW 000 from the above corporate tax amount on December 29 of the same year.

(4) On March 21, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a request with the Tax Tribunal for a review on the instant disposition, and the Tax Tribunal decided on October 5, 201 that the Plaintiff’s re-surveys part of the Plaintiff’s total amount of expenditure for extra expense in the business year of 2008, and accordingly, made a decision to reduce the amount of 00 won by conducting a reinvestigation (hereinafter “the disposition of this case”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Two Evidence A, Four Evidence B, and Five Evidence, and the purport of the whole pleading

C. Determination

(1) As to the omission of a sale declaration

In light of the following circumstances, which are known in light of the entire purport of entry and pleading with Eul, 7, and 8, i.e., ① the contract amount of 00 won between the plaintiff and the mainGG on May 1, 2008, and the construction period from May 1, 2008 to July 30 of the same year, and ② the sales status by the situation prepared by the plaintiff are as follows: (i) the seller, and the contract amount of 00 won; and (ii) the construction period is as of May 1, 2008, the contract amount of '00' and the contract amount of '00 won' are as of July 30, 208; and (iii) the state of purchase and payment of the above contract amount was made between the plaintiff and the mainG on the basis that the plaintiff did not appear to be in compliance with the plaintiff's request for the payment of the construction price, and (iii) the mainG's assertion that the plaintiff's request for the payment of the construction price was not made to the plaintiff.

(2) As to the report on processing costs

(A) In the administrative litigation seeking revocation on the grounds of tax illegality, in principle, the tax authority bears the burden of proof with respect to the legality of the disposition and the existence of the taxation requirement fact, but with respect to the existence of special circumstances under the experience rule, the taxpayer bears the burden of proof or burden of proof with respect to the amount of expenses to be included in the deductible expenses, which are the basis for determining the income tax base of corporate tax, in principle, and there are cases where the taxpayer bears the burden of proof with regard to the amount of expenses to be included in the deductible expenses, which are the basis for determining the income amount of corporate tax, considering the equity of the parties, etc., and there are cases where the taxpayer bears the burden of proof with regard to the amount of expenses reported by the taxpayer, and the tax authority argues that the use of the expenses claimed by the taxpayer and the other party to the payment were proved to be false, and that there was a fact that there was a cost of other than the same amount according to the details of the taxpayer's report, it is necessary to prove that it is easy for the taxpayer to present all data, such as the account books and evidence (see, etc.

(B) There is no dispute between the parties between them, and evidence Nos. 4 and 5, and that is, (i) the amount appropriated as personnel expenses in the income statement for the business year 2008 by the plaintiff is 00 won or more, and the amount explained as personnel expenses of 000 won or more, which is 00 won or not submitted objective data, and (ii) the defendant recognized public charges (property tax) and technical qualification allowances of 000 won out of the amount claimed as expenses of the plaintiff, and corrected corporate tax by reducing corporate tax at the plaintiff's expense, and according to the review decision by the Tax Tribunal, it is difficult to accept the plaintiff's assertion that the amount was 00 won, excluding 000 won out of the amount claimed by the plaintiff under the name of health insurance premiums, and the amount was 00 won after deducting 00 won out of the amount claimed by the plaintiff as expenses, since the above amount was confirmed as objective material among the expenses claimed by the plaintiff, it is difficult to find that the above amount was included in deductible expenses, and there is no other evidence.

4. Conclusion

If so, the part concerning imposition of Class A earned income tax for the business year of 2007 and the value added tax for the business year of 2008, and Class A earned income tax for the business year of 2008 is illegal and dismissed, and the remainder of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed as it is without merit.