Cho High-depth 201Gu0450 ( October 13, 2011)

income tax shall be revoked for a portion verified as an employee's retirement allowance out of the provisional payment

The provisional payment, appropriated at the time of the closure of the business, must be disposed of as bonus to the representative director, but the global income tax on a part of the amount verified as the employee retirement allowance shall be partially cancelled.

2011Guhap3489 global income and revocation of disposition

KimA

Head of the Tax Office

February 8, 2012

March 21, 2012

1. The Defendant’s partial disposition of KRW 32,401,995 against the Plaintiff on August 1, 2010, in excess of KRW 17,654,335, among the partial disposition of KRW 32,401,995, which belonged to the year 2007, shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. One-half of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

The Defendant imposed global income tax of KRW 32,803,005 on the Plaintiff on August 1, 2010, as global income tax of KRW 32,803,005.

The amount of tax stated in the written complaint shall be cancelled (the written claim shall be written in writing).

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From August 11, 2003 to November 22, 2007, the Plaintiff operated the said company as the representative director of “B” corporation (hereinafter “B”). The said company closed its business on November 22, 2007.

B. The Defendant deemed that BB did not recover 140,000,000 won for short-term loans for the Plaintiff included in the financial statements for the business year 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “instant provisional payment”) in the year 2007, which includes the cessation of business, and included the said amount in the gross income for the year 2007, and deemed that the said gross income was out of the company and reverted to the Plaintiff, the representative director, and accordingly disposed of as bonus for the Plaintiff on August 1, 2010, and imposed KRW 39,721,370 on the Plaintiff on August 1, 2010.

C. The Plaintiff filed an objection against the aforementioned disposition on September 20, 2010, but the Defendant on October 2010.

18. The above objection was dismissed.

D. The Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on January 12, 2011 and the Tax Tribunal on June 13, 201

'The dispute' (i.e., KRW 19,393,90,00 (=18,593,900 + cost of ship dismantling + KRW 800,000) out of the amount of the provisional payment of loans, the tax base and tax amount were corrected, and the remainder of the appeal is dismissed.'

E. According to the decision of the Tax Tribunal, the Defendant corrected the total income tax for September 30, 201 to KRW 32,803,005 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) as of September 30, 201 by reducing the amount to KRW 32,803,005 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 and 2-1 to 7, Gap evidence 3, 8, Eul evidence 1 and 2

each entry, the purport of the whole pleading

2. The plaintiff's assertion is as follows.

BB collected the provisional payment of 118,316,640 won (=retirement allowance of 53,077,130 won + 118,316,640 won) as retirement allowances and salaries of employees, including the Plaintiff, such as the statement in [Attachment 1] Retirement Allowances and the statement in the payment statement, and thus, even though the amount was not released from the company, it is unlawful to recognize that the issue was the whole amount of the provisional payment and that it was reverted to the Plaintiff as bonus.

3. Related statutes;

Attached 2 is as stated in the "related Acts and subordinate statutes".

4. Determination

A. Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act and the proviso of Article 106 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provide that "the amount included in the calculation of earnings shall be deemed to have been reverted to the representative, although it is clear that it would have been out of the company in determining or revising the taxation standards of corporate tax, and the amount of which attribution is unclear." The representative recognition contribution system under the Corporate Tax Act is not based on the fact that such income has accrued to the representative, but its purpose is to make certain facts recognized as such to prevent unfair acts under the tax law be deemed to be a bonus to the representative without regard to a condition so regardless of the substance. In this case, unless the representative proves that the above amount included in the calculation of earnings is clear, he shall be liable to pay Class A labor income tax regardless of whether it was actually reverted to him (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2006Da49789, Sept. 18, 2008).

B. According to Gap evidence 5-1 to 7, Eul evidence 5-3, witness KimCC, HaE, and Kim HH, whose issues were collected except for the plaintiff, and whose total amount was 39,18,500 won was 30,000 won, the head of the above 200,000 won was 30,000 won and 80,000 won were 20,000 won were 30,000 won were 80,000 won were 10,000 won were 30,000 won were 10,000 won were 80,00 won were 10,000 won were 20,000 won were 10,000 won were 30,00 won were 10,000 won were 10,000 won were 10,000 won were 30,000 won were 10,000 won were 207.

C. The plaintiff's assertion that BB recovered KRW 13,958,630 out of the issue of the provisional payment in 2007 and disbursed it as the plaintiff's retirement allowance is insufficient to acknowledge it only by the second period of evidence Nos. 5-1, 7-1 of the evidence Nos. 5-1, which the plaintiff himself prepared, and there is no other evidence, and the above assertion is without merit. In addition, it is insufficient to examine whether B recovered the issue in 2007 and paid KRW 65,239,510 in total for E, and there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, 39,118,50 won, which is not recognized as having been out of the company among the provisional payment, shall not be deemed to have been reverted to the plaintiff, and except for this, when calculating the legitimate amount of global income tax for the plaintiff in 2007, it shall be 17,654,335 won, such as the "justifiable Calculation of Tax Amount" in attached Form 3.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.