Daegu District Court 2012Guhap2346 ( November 07, 2012)

It is clear that the outflow from the corporation was clearly included in the gross income but it is not clear that the amount belongs to the representative.

In determining the corporate tax base of a non-reported corporation, it is clear that the disposition agency was out of the company from among the amount included in the calculation of earnings, but the amount for which the accrual is unclear is attributed to the representative unless the representative clearly proves the accrual of the amount

Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act

Article 20 of the Income Tax Act

2012Nu2987 Revocation of imposition of global income tax

KimA

Head of Yeongdeungpo Tax Office

대구지방법훤 2012. 11. 7. 선고 2012구합2346 판결

October 18, 2013

November 22, 2013

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's disposition of imposition of the global income tax for the plaintiff on May 2, 2011 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, from April 9, 2007 to October 29, 2008, and from March 20, 2009 to March 20, 2009, is working as the representative director of BBtech Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “BBtech”), and the largestCC was working as the representative director of BBtech from October 30, 2008 to March 19, 209.

B. The director of the secondary tax office shall conduct a tax investigation when BBtech did not report corporate tax for the business year 2008, and (i) shall be the defendant, and (ii) shall be registered ex officio, and (iii) shall be exempted from sales revenue in the business year 2008, and (iv) shall confirm the omission of OBE in sales revenue in the business year 2008 and notify the plaintiff of the disposal amount under Article 66(1) and (3) of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9267 of Dec. 26, 2008, and Article 104(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21302 of Feb. 4, 2009, and hereinafter referred to as the "former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act") shall be included in the calculation of sales revenue amount of O-O-O(O-O cost cost expenses) and the representative director shall be deemed to have been paid to the plaintiff for each business year 20000 OBte.

C. On May 2, 2011, the Defendant: (a) recognized the total amount of the Plaintiff’s annual income in 2008 as an OOO of the total amount of the bonus in this case and the amount of the Plaintiff’s earned income in 2008, and issued a disposition imposing and notifying OOO of the global income tax for 2008 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. On September 15, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a petition with the Tax Tribunal for an adjudication against the instant disposition, which was dismissed on January 20, 2012.

[Ground of Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, and Eul evidence 3 (including natural disaster, hereinafter the same shall apply), and the whole purport of the pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff: (a) from August 2008, the Plaintiff was unable to receive benefits from BBte; and (b) the largestCC, the former representative director of BBte, embezzled all of the instant bonus amount. Therefore, the instant disposition that the Defendant deemed otherwise to have accrued from the bonus amount to the Plaintiff is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

Attachment 'Related Acts and subordinate statutes' shall be as shown.

C. Determination

(1) According to Article 67 of the former Corporate Tax Act and the proviso of Article 106(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree thereof, in determining or correcting the tax base of corporate tax, the amount out of the amount of gross income industry is clear but the amount of which attribution is unclear shall be deemed to have been reverted to the representative. The recognition contribution system of the representative under the Corporate Tax Act is not based on the fact that such income was generated to the representative, but rather on certain facts that can be recognized as such act in order to prevent unfair conduct under the tax law, the purpose is to consider it as a bonus to the representative without regard to the actual fact

According to Article 20 (1) (c) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9270 of Dec. 26, 2008), "the amount treated as a bonus under the Corporate Tax Act" is naturally included in Class A earned income, which is an element for calculating global income tax, and unless the representative proves that the amount distributed out of the company is clear, he/she is liable to pay income tax regardless of whether it actually reverts to himself/herself (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2006Da49789, Sept. 18, 2008).

In addition, if a corporation fails to enter its sales in an account book despite a fact of sales, the total amount omitted from sales shall be deemed to have been leaked out, barring special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Du3726, Jan. 11, 2002).

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances, i.e., the plaintiff did not report 208 OE to the 200-year sales revenue of BBE until March 31, 2009, and there is no other evidence to deem the sales revenue of BBE to have been recorded in the 200-year accounting books. (ii) The plaintiff did not submit the 200-year accounting books of BBE to the 2008-year 20-year 200-year 200-year 200-year 200-year 2000, and the 200-year 20-year 20-year 20-year 200-year 200, and the 10-year 20-year 20-year 200-year 200-year 200-OE 200-year 208.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance which dismissed the plaintiff's claim of this case is just and there is no ground for appeal by the plaintiff, and it is so decided as per Disposition.