early 2010west 1781

An amount of money deposited into the account, the source of which is not known, shall be presumed to be the sales unless there are special circumstances.

Of the amount deposited into the Plaintiff’s corporate account, the representative director’s account, and the Plaintiff’s borrowed account, the amount not otherwise revealed shall be presumed to be the Plaintiff’s sales amount, barring any special circumstance.

2011 Gohap30564 Revocation of Corporate Tax Imposition Disposition, etc.

XX Co., Ltd

Samsung Head of Samsung Tax Office

August 21, 2012

September 20, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Each disposition on February 10, 2010, which the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on February 10, 2010, including attached taxation, shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 18, 1999, the representative director of the Plaintiff, YA opened a retail business as an individual entrepreneur, and thereafter expanding the business more than 20 business places across the country (the two individual business places) and run a business such as a free retail business around 2006.

B. On September 12, 2006, as a result of the increase in the number of businesses as seen above, as management is difficult in the form of an individual company, the company should be converted into a corporation, and the company was converted into a corporation by means of business transfer after establishing the Plaintiff.

C. From 2006 to 2008, the Plaintiff filed a return on the value-added tax (the total value-added tax) and corporate tax as follows:

D. After conducting a tax investigation with respect to the plaintiff around September 12, 2006, from September 12, 2006 to December 31, 2008, the defendant identified 00 won of cash sales remaining after deducting the amount reported as value-added tax sales in the pertinent taxable period from the above amount (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff's corporate tax account"), YA's corporate bank account under the name of the plaintiff's representative director (hereinafter referred to as "YA account"), 'YB' bank account under the name of the plaintiff's borrowed account (hereinafter referred to as "rightB account"), 'YB account' account under the name of the plaintiff's largest CC's account and 'YB account' account under the name of the plaintiff, 's largest CC's account, and 100 won of income from each of the above taxation periods, 'the amount of income from each of the above taxation dispositions, including the list of 00 won and value-added tax', and 200 won of income from each of the above tax base.

E. On May 10, 2010, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on November 25, 201.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Although the Plaintiff was established on September 12, 2006, it purchased products for sale from October 9, 2006, and since the actual business was commenced from this time, there was no product available for sale prior to that date. Accordingly, the total amount deposited in the Yellow A account, the representative director of the Plaintiff, from September 12, 2006 to October 9, 2006, as the total amount deposited in the Plaintiff’s account from September 12, 2006, which was operated by the YellowA as an individual entrepreneur, was the sales amount of the individual company, and the sales amount of each individual company is already paid taxes for the sales amount of the individual company. Accordingly, the amount should be excluded from this case’s amount.

2) Of the private enterprises of Yellow A, Y diving is not converted into a juristic person, but closed on December 28, 2007, and it cannot be deemed as the Plaintiff’s sales omission amount of KRW 000,000, out of the money deposited in the sphereB account in the name of YY diving Points. YY diving was in charge of YA’s wife, and the above KRW 00,00,000, which was deposited in the sphereB account in this D’s name, was the sales amount of YYP account operated by Yellow A as an individual entrepreneur. Therefore, this amount should be excluded from the instant amount.

3) Of the money deposited in the Plaintiff’s corporate account, KRW 000, regardless of the Plaintiff’s sale, the amount transferred from another corporate bank account under the Plaintiff’s name (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s other corporate bank account”) to a simple account due to the need for fund management. Therefore, the amount should be excluded from the instant amount.

4) The instant amount includes the money repaid by the Yellowa to its individual branch members. Of the money deposited in the Yellowa account, KRW 00,000, out of the money deposited in the Yellowa account, was loaned to its branch members regardless of their business, and thus, the amount should be excluded from the instant amount.

5) The Defendant deemed 000 won out of the amount deposited in the Plaintiff’s corporate account as an omission of cash sales. However, since the Plaintiff properly carried out accounting and tax processing by reflecting the entire amount deposited in the Plaintiff’s corporate account in the ledger of the account, there is no amount omitted out of the amount deposited in the Plaintiff’s corporate account.

B. Relevant statutes

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

C. Determination

1) Principles of applicable taxation and method of field investigation

Article 16 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 9263, Dec. 26, 2008) provides for the principle of taxation based on the following facts: (a) when a taxation authority investigates and determines the tax base and tax amount of a taxpayer; (b) when a taxpayer investigates and determines the tax base and tax amount, the account books kept and kept by the taxpayer; and (c) when the details of the account books are different from facts or the entry of the account books is omitted, the tax authority may determine them according to the actual investigation

With respect to the method of such on-site investigation, a taxpayer’s final return of tax base may be deemed to be based on account books or evidence, but if it is recognized that there is an error or omission in the details of a tax return by other data and that it is possible to conduct the on-site investigation, it may be corrected by other data. On-site investigation is an objective method so long as it is possible to capture actual income. Determination of the taxpayer’s sales by investigating the amount deposited in the financial institution account of the taxpayer is a legitimate on-site investigation with objectivity. In general, if the facts alleged in light of the empirical rule in a lawsuit imposing tax are proved, the burden of proof as to the facts of taxation should be deemed to be the taxpayer, but if it is proved in the course of the specific lawsuit, it cannot be concluded that the other party is illegal disposition that fails to meet the requirements for taxation unless it proves the circumstances that the facts at issue are not eligible to be subject to the application of the empirical rule (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du14284, Apr. 27, 2004).

2) Determination

A) In light of the above legal principles, as seen earlier, the amount, out of the amount deposited into the Plaintiff’s corporate account, the YA account, the representative director of the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s borrowed account, is presumed to be the Plaintiff’s sales, barring special circumstances. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is examined in sequence.

B) Determination on the first argument

In full view of the Plaintiff’s evidence Nos. 6 and 7’s statement, the Plaintiff’s customer director stated that the purchase of other company was made from October 9, 2006, and that the Plaintiff’s personal account was deposited in KRW 000 on 23 occasions between September 16, 2006 and October 4, 2006. However, the above evidence and evidence Nos. 8 are as follows: (i) it is difficult to find that the Plaintiff’s personal account was purchased on 00 won prior to the initial tax investigation, and that it was difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff’s personal account was purchased on 00 won prior to the initial date on 00,000, based on the circumstance that it was difficult to find that the Plaintiff’s personal account was purchased on 00,000 won prior to the initial date on 00,000,0000 won by reporting it to 0,0000 won, and thus, the Plaintiff’s personal account was purchased on 8,0000.

C) Judgment on the second argument

In full view of the purport of the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 9’s oral argument, it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff continued to conduct the business on December 28, 2007 without being converted into a corporation for business transfer, and that the Plaintiff deposited KRW 00,000 in the account in this title from November 1, 2006 to June 15, 2007. However, in light of the above evidence and evidence, it is difficult to find that Kim H was the representative of the Plaintiff’s YH, and that there was no other evidence as to the deposit in this part of the Plaintiff’s YJ as to the deposit in the name of Defendant 1, 207, and that there was no other evidence as to the deposit in this part of the Plaintiff’s YJ as to the deposit in the name of Defendant 1, 200.

D) Determination on the third argument

In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, evidence Nos. 10 and 11, it is acknowledged that the sum of KRW 000 has been paid from the Plaintiff’s other corporate account to the Plaintiff’s corporate account 16 times from October 31, 2006 to September 12, 2007. However, in full view of the following circumstances, the amount deposited into the Plaintiff’s other corporate account, i.e., the amount deposited into the Plaintiff’s corporate account, barring any special circumstance, can be seen as the Plaintiff’s sales (which does not claim that the amount is not the sales amount), and it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff reported and paid the value-added tax and corporate tax including the sales amount, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and the amount deposited into the Plaintiff’s other corporate account was not reflected in understanding the omitted amount of the Plaintiff’s report at the time of the tax investigation, it is reasonable to deem the Plaintiff’s sales amount as the Plaintiff’s sales amount.

E) Judgment on the fourth argument

갑 제14 내지 20호증의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 황AA 계좌에 2006. 10. 1.부터 2008. 6. 4.까지 7회에 걸쳐 합계 000원(그 중 이DD 명의로 입금된 돈은 000원이고 나머지는 ATM 입금, 자기앞수표 입금이다), 2006. 10. 20. 양LL 명의로 000원, 2006. 12. 4. 허MM 명의로 000원, 2007 1. 12. 윤OO 명의로 000원, 2007. 6. 26. 이PP 명의로 000원, 2007. 8. 27. 이QQ 명의로 000원, 2008. 8. 1. 임RR 명의로 000원, 2008. 9. 30. 이SS 명의로 000원, 합계 000원이 각 입금된 사실은 인정된다. 그러나 앞서 든 증거들 및 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 ① 황AA가 이PP, 임RR, 허MM, 이QQ, 양LL, 윤OO에게 당초 대여금조로 위 각 금원을 지급하였음을 인정할만한 자료가 없고, 원고는 이DD, 이PP, 임RR에 대한 차용증을 제출하지 못하고 있는 점, ② 원고가 제출한 이JJ에 대한 차용금 증서(갑 제17호증의 1)에는 채권자가 기재되어 있지 않고, 변제기 및 이자율 등이 전혀 기재되어 있지 않으며, 허MM, 김TT에 대한 차용증(갑 제18호증의 1, 갑 제20호증의 1)에는 각 채무자의 서명 또는 날인이 되어 있지 않은 점, ③ 원고가 이DD에게 대여하였다가 상환받았다고 주장하는 000원 중 000원에 대하여 원고는 이 사건에서 황AA가 개인사업자로 운영하던 강서점, 계양점, 일산점, 고대점 등 개인기업의 매출액이라고도 주장하고 있어 그 주장에 일관성이 없는 점(원고의 첫 번째 주장 참조), ④ 원고는 이DD 등에게 대여하였다고 주장하면서도 이DD 등으로부터 이자를 지급받은 내역도 제출하지 못하고 있는 점 등을 종합해 보면, 위 000원은 황AA가 지인들에게 대여하였다가 상환받은 돈이 아니라 원고의 매출액이라고 봄이 타당 하다. 원고의 이 부분 주장은 이유 없다.

F) Judgment on the fifth argument

Article 24 and 25 of the Plaintiff’s Act provides that the amount of money deposited from September 12, 2006 to December 31, 208 shall be 00 won (including 00 won, which the Defendant understood as omitting sales) and that all of the above amount of accounts was reflected in the ledger of each of the Plaintiff’s ordinary deposits. However, according to the above evidence and evidence No. 35, and No. 13, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s total amount of money deposited in each of the accounts was reflected in the ledger of each of the accounts (excluding the above acknowledged facts, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s total amount of money deposited in each of the accounts was reflected in the ledger of each of the accounts, and that the Plaintiff’s total amount of money deposited in each of the accounts (excluding the Plaintiff’s total amount of money deposited in each of the accounts) was 10% of the total amount of money deposited in each of the accounts (excluding the Plaintiff’s total amount of money deposited in each of the accounts, 20% of the Plaintiff’s total amount of money deposited.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit.