Examination Income 2007-0150 ( December 18, 2007)

Whether or not a certified judicial scrivener includes a tax base where he/she receives a lump sum payment of the basic fees for registration documents, registration tax reporting agency fees, and transportation expenses.

A certified judicial scrivener shall be paid for the above services, including the fees for preparing a certificate of registration, a certificate of registration, a seal of approval and a registration fee reporting agency fees, etc., which are paid by the certified judicial scrivener, shall be included in the

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

The defendant's imposition of value-added tax of 1,806,50 on May 1, 2007 against the plaintiff (the "application for revision to the lawsuit on June 1, 2007" seems to be the error on the above date) of 1,802, of 1,806,50 won on global income of 1,386,60 won on June 1, 2007, of 11,386,620 won on global income of 364,40,840 won on global income of 206, of 207, imposition of value-added tax of 207, of 205, of 209, of 206, of 207, imposition of value-added tax of 206,7,80,840 won on global income of 206, 207, 209, 209, 206, 209, 205, 206,3

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

A. From May 14, 1994, the Plaintiff registered his/her business with the trade name called "office for law firm bonds" in 1601-4, ○○○-dong, Ansan-si, 1601-4, 303, and operated a certified judicial scrivener service.

B. We examined the facts that the Plaintiff omitted the amount of KRW 76,510,973 from a certified judicial scrivener during the taxable period from February 6, 2006 to April 20, 2006, based on the integrated investigation into the personal business of the Plaintiff and the confirmation from the Plaintiff, which was conducted from February 6, 2006 to April 20, 2006, from 76,510,973 from the value-added tax base during the taxable period from February 1, 2002 to 206, all of them were included in the tax base for each taxable period, and 1,806,50,50,306,50, 207, 11,386, 205, 207, 2005, 205, 2005, 208, 2005, 380, 204, 2008, 205, 2004.

C. In addition, through the above personal business integration investigation from 2002 to 2005, the Plaintiff confirmed the private theory which omitted 487,261,516 won in total from the revenue amount of certified judicial scrivener services and real estate rental services during the taxable period from 2005, and all of them were included as revenue amount during each taxable period, and deemed as necessary expenses and added 277,930,570 won in total, and on June 1, 2007, the Plaintiff corrected and notified 16,431,040 won in global income tax for the year 2002, 13,808,300 won in global income tax for the year 2003, and 41,367,090 won in global income tax for the year 2005 and 26,890,890 won in global income tax for the year 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “each of the above global income tax correction disposition”).

[Basis] Evidence Nos. 1-1 through 10, evidence Nos. 1 through 4, evidence Nos. 5, evidence Nos. 1-5 through 14, evidence Nos. 2 through 4, evidence Nos. 8-1 through 4, and evidence Nos. 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts to the purport that each of the above amounts shall not be included in the tax base of value-added tax or the amount of global income tax on behalf of the plaintiff, because the plaintiff's employees use the full amount of expenses for business trip as actual expenses, and the full amount of expenses for preparation of a cause document, seal of approval of a cause document, registration tax return, etc. is actually paid to licensed real estate agents or brokerage assistants, which is merely a delivery of the amount to be paid directly by licensed real estate agents, etc. on behalf of the plaintiff.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

According to Articles 7(1) and 13(1)1 of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 48(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the supply of services is providing services on all contractual or legal grounds. The tax base of value-added tax on the supply of services includes all money in a quid pro quo-related relationship, regardless of the pretext such as payments, charges, fees, and other fees received from the opposite contractual party. According to Article 24(1) of the Income Tax Act, the calculation of the total income amount of each income of a resident is based on the total sum of amounts received or received during the current year.

In full view of the overall purport of the arguments in evidence Nos. 10-1, 2-2 of the evidence No. 10-2 of the plaintiff's evidence Nos. 10-2 of the plaintiff's testimony, Kim Jong-hee, and Lee Il-hee's testimony, the plaintiff was entrusted with registration business by the client, and the plaintiff was entrusted with the registration business, such as the principal fee, the preparation fee of the registration certificate, the seal of approval certificate and the registration tax return, transportation expenses, accommodation expenses and daily allowances, etc., and the part of the registration business, such as the reason for registration certificate and the registration tax return, are entrusted to the employee. In addition, in the opinion of the calculation of the certified judicial scrivener's remuneration, in addition to the basic fee, the amount of the registration document No. 10-2 of the plaintiff's evidence No. 10-2 of the plaintiff's testimony, the plaintiff's above affairs are not the plaintiff's business, or some of the money received from the client was paid to the defendant's office by cash transfer, not the plaintiff's receipt No.

In light of the above facts, since the client is the plaintiff and the other party to whom all affairs related to the registration, such as the preparation of the registration reason document including the certificate of registration reason, the certificate of registration reason, the seal of approval and the report of registration tax, etc., are entrusted to the real estate broker, and the client does not have awareness that some of his affairs are entrusted to the real estate broker, it is reasonable to deem that all affairs related to the registration including the document of registration reason, and the document of registration reason, the document of registration reason, the stamp of approval and the report of registration tax, etc., are all affairs related to the service provided to the plaintiff. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the above amount received as the price for the above service including the document of registration reason, the document of registration reason, the certificate of registration reason, the seal of approval and the report of registration fee, etc., should be included in the tax base of value-added tax and the global income tax, even if the plaintiff paid the real estate agent or the broker assistant, as alleged by the plaintiff, it is difficult to exclude the amount from the tax base of value-added tax and global income tax (the plaintiff's evidence No. 1 through No. 4.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking revocation of each of the dispositions of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.