Seocho 2012west 1552 (Law No. 18, 2012)

The taxpayer should assert and prove that the expenses corresponding to the omitted income have been omitted.

In regard to the omission of the expenses incurred in relation to omitted income, the taxpayer should assert and prove that the expenses incurred in relation to omitted income have been reported, but the fact that funds have been transferred from the spouse's account is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff spent advertising expenses and welfare expenses from 2007 to 2009 in relation to the project of the instant private teaching institute, and there is no

2012Guhap30370 global income and revocation of such disposition

EAA

head of Dongjak-gu Tax Office

March 5, 2013

April 11, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of global income tax of KRW 000, global income tax of KRW 000 for the year 2007, and global income tax of KRW 000 for the year 2008, and global income tax of KRW 000 for the year 2009 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff operated the OO(hereinafter “the instant private teaching institute”) at the 000 OO buildings in India-dong O-dong O-dong 000.

B. The director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office: (a) included the omitted amount in the total income of the Plaintiff as the result of the personal tax integration investigation; and (b) included the amount verified as out-of-the-counter expenses in the necessary expenses; and (c) notified the Defendant of the global income tax rectification resolution from 2007 to 2009. Accordingly, on July 1, 201, the Defendant decided and notified the Plaintiff of the global income tax (including the additional tax) from 2007 to 2009 (hereinafter “the first disposition”).

C. On October 5, 201, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office, who was dismissed, and filed a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal on February 14, 2012, but was dismissed on June 18, 2012, and filed the instant lawsuit on September 11, 2012.

D. On December 11, 2012, when the lawsuit of this case was pending, the Defendant revoked each of the additional taxes from 2007 to 2009 during the initial disposition, and stored each of the additional taxes from 2007 to 2009 (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”) from 2007 to 2009 after stating the type of and the basis for calculation of the additional taxes (hereinafter “the initial disposition and the imposition of additional taxes”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 5 to 9 (including any natural disaster) and the purport of the whole argument

2. Determination on the legitimacy of each of the dispositions of this case

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff paid 000 won in total, such as the former from 2007 to 2009, bulletin board user fees, etc., through the plaintiff's wife EE account, and paid 2007 and 2008 employee substitute subsidies as shown below, and such advertising promotion expenses and welfare expenses should be additionally included in necessary expenses.

(Voting omitted)

(The plaintiff asserts that the additional tax payment notice without stating the kinds of and the basis for calculation of the additional tax was illegal, but the defendant revoked the previous imposition of the additional tax while the lawsuit in this case was pending, and notified again along with the type of and basis for calculation of the additional tax, the procedural defect was cured.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form 1. The entry in the relevant statutes is as follows.

C. Determination

With respect to omitted income, unless there is any evidence to support that there was a separate expense for responding to omitted income in the field investigation, it would be in line with the empirical rule and the principle of equity that a taxpayer seeking a separate deduction has to assert and prove the expenses corresponding to omitted income (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Nu10695, Jul. 28, 1992; 2002Du2673, Nov. 27, 2003). The fact that the Plaintiff’s account transfer funds from the account of NAE to the account of 207 to 200, and the Plaintiff’s account transfer funds from NAE to 00 to 209, and the Plaintiff’s account transfer funds from POE to 0, as otherwise alleged by the Plaintiff, could not be considered as the Plaintiff’s account transfer funds, including the Plaintiff’s business registration statement, and the Plaintiff’s account transfer funds from POE to 200 to 200, and the Plaintiff’s account transfer funds, as otherwise alleged.

3. Conclusion

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