Seoul Administrative Court-2018-Gu Partnership-838 ( October 13, 2018)

Estimated taxation under a partnership agreement

The tax disposition that calculated the estimated income amount calculated by applying simple expense rate (79.9%) to the plaintiff's revenue amount as global income amount is legitimate, considering that the profit distribution ratio between joint business operators is 1/3.

Article 43 of the Income Tax Act

2018Nu6108. Revocation of imposition of global income tax

AA

a) the Director of the Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2018Guhap838 Decided July 13, 2019

on October 08, 2019

December 2, 2019

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 imposition of global income tax of 126,760,480 won (including additional tax) against the Plaintiff on March 9, 2017 by the Defendant shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the judgment of the court in this case is that the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the parts added or written by the following:

○ 7 6,760,480 won "(including additional tax 61,463,783 won)" shall be added after "126,760,480 won" at the bottom of the second judgment of the first instance (hereinafter referred to as "written judgment of the first instance").

○ At the second bottom of the 7th shall add:

The above global income tax amount of KRW 126,760,480 is calculated by calculating the estimated income amount of KRW 23,562,00,000 as the Plaintiff’s global income by calculating the estimated income amount of KRW 233,562,00,000, which is calculated by applying the simplified expense (79.9%) of KRW 1,162,00,000 as the Plaintiff’s income amount of KRW 1,562,00 as the Plaintiff’s global income amount of KRW 233,562,00,000, which is divided as the market price of land and building.

D. On May 15, 2017, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service. However, on October 31, 2017, the request for examination was dismissed.

From 2 00 to 5 - 6 - one shall be dried up as follows.

Facts that there is no dispute over recognition, Gap No. 36, 37, 38, Eul No. 1, 2, and 7

statement of each chapter, including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleading

○ At the bottom of the 3rd side, 2 trokes (in the inside of the troke line) shall be dried as follows:

1) CCC: 30%, 2) DD: 30%, 30%) Plaintiff: 40%

○ 4 7 to 10 p.m. (excluding the two main lines) shall be written in the following manner:

④ At the time of the investigation into value-added tax on DDR on June 3, 2014, DDR acquired the instant officetel from public sale for investment purposes. At the time of acquisition, DDR acquired the instant officetel in its name because it was difficult for the Plaintiff and CCC to make a loan due to the lack of good credit. The instant officetel was acquired under DDR, the Plaintiff, and CCC’s part of the invested money, the amount invested by the Plaintiff from the FF, and the amount financed by the Plaintiff from AAAAA Savings Bank, and the amount financed by the Plaintiff from the FF, and the Plaintiff paid the lien-related expenses to the lien holder. The Plaintiff introduced AAAA Savings Bank and received a loan. Although DDR, the instant business contract was drafted later than April 2, 2009, it was consistent with DDR, Plaintiff, CCC’s business, and it was concluded that the sale of real estate was not a dispute as a result of the first sale and sale of real estate.

○ 4 6 6 6 6 6 6

(Preparation of the instant partnership agreement is deemed to have been more than April 2, 2009 stipulated in the above contract. However, such circumstance alone alone alone cannot readily be readily concluded that the content of the instant partnership agreement is false. In light of the circumstances before and after the conclusion, etc., the content of the instant partnership agreement is likely to specify the matters that were verbally or implicitly agreed between the Plaintiff, DD andCC.

seems to exist)

○ 5 2. The following shall be added:

[DDD 명의의 2014. 11. 1.자 정정서(갑 제47호증)에는 'CCC, 원고와 함께 모두 셋이서 협의한 자리가 지금껏 한 번도 없었다. 이 사건 동업계약서는 셋이서 합의가된 문서가 아니라 원고의 후배인 EEE을 �아내는 데 필요할 때 임시적으로 사용한문서이다'라는 취지로 기재되어 있으나, 앞서 인정한 사정들과 원고, DDD, CCC의 각 진술 내용에 비추어 볼 때, 위 정정서의 기재만으로 원고가 DDD, CCC과 공동사업을 한 사실을 뒤집기는 어렵고, 원고가 당심에서 추가로 제출한 갑 제54, 55, 56, 63호증(각 가지번호 포함) 등의 기재까지 함께 살펴보더라도 마찬가지이다]

○ From 5 10 up to 3 :00 up to 5 :

[Defendant is the necessary expenses for the acquisition and transfer of the instant officetel after the investigation into DD, and KRW 13,00,000, including the acquisition value of the commercial building 2,235,000,000, housing acquisition value of KRW 156,000,000, and the acquisition value of KRW 156,000,00, and the judicial scrivener's expenses, are verified through real estate registration data and purchase tax invoice. However, in the case of lien costs, AAAAA Savings Bank interest costs, etc., the exact amount cannot be calculated on the ground that the instant officetel was actually sold by auction between 2011 to 2012 (local tax and financial liabilities) and that the instant officetel was actually sold by auction between 2011 to 2012, not the standard expense rate (No. 7). For the same reason, the Plaintiff was also subject to the simple expense rate application of the Plaintiff's necessary expenses, etc.

○ 6 4 to 7 parallels shall be dried as follows.

이 사건 동업계약서에 따르면 원고는 이 사건 오피스텔 취득 및 양도로 인한 수익중 40%를 분배받기로 약정하였는바, 원고는 DDD으로부터 실제 수익을 분배받았는지 여부와 관계없이(실제로 수익금을 분배받지 못하였다고 하더라도 계약상 채무불이행에 따른 문제에 불과하다) 공동사업으로 인하여 발생한 수익 중 약정된 원고의 손익분배 비율에 해당하는 금액에 대하여 종합소득세 납부의무를 부담한다(다만, 을 제7호증의기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 피고는 '동업계약서가 사후 작성된 점으로 볼 때 이익분배비율은 동업계약서상 분배비율이 아닌 동업자간 공동배분으로 보고 소득금액 안분하는 것이 실질에 근거한 과세라고 판단된다'는 이유로 원고의 손익분배비율을1/3로 인정하여 과세한 사실이 인정된다. 이 사건 처분이 이 사건 동업계약서에 기재된 손익분배비율을 초과하지 않는 범위 내에서 이루어진 이상 이를 위법하다고 볼 수는 없다).

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.