beta
Case Number of the previous trial
Cho High Court Decision 201Do3756 ( October 28, 2012)
Title
Whether to recognize extra expense corresponding to the amount of income reported omitted
Summary
Unless special circumstances exist, such as where the tax authorities have discovered the income omitted in the initial return of the corporation in determining the tax base and amount of the corporation's income through the field investigation method, it is reasonable to view that the corresponding deductible expenses were already included in the deductible expenses unless there are other special circumstances, such as the account books or
Cases
2012Guhap30387 Revocation of Disposition of Corporate Tax Imposition
Plaintiff
AAA, Inc.
Defendant
head of Dongjak-gu Tax Office
Conclusion of Pleadings
April 5, 2013
Imposition of Judgment
May 24, 2013
Text
1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim
On July 1, 2011, the defendant revoked each disposition of the corporate tax of 2006 and OOOOO in 2009 and 2010 against the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff is a company that operates an OO-gu O-dong, O-dong O-O-dong, and O-O-dong O-O-dong, etc. in preparation for a public official examination.
B. From March 9, 2011 to May 2, 2011, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office made a tax investigation on the Plaintiff, and notified the Defendant that “OO(OOO(2007 income amount, OOO(2008 income amount, 2009 income amount, OOO(2009)) and response personnel were omitted from OOO(2007 response personnel, and OOO).”
C. Accordingly, on July 1, 201, the Defendant included the omitted income in the gross income and included the omitted response costs in the deductible expenses, and decided and notified the Plaintiff of the corporate tax in 2006, the additional tax OOO in 2007, the additional tax OOO in 2008, the additional tax OOO in 2009, and the additional tax OOOO(including the additional tax OOO) in 209, and the additional tax OOO(including the additional tax) in the corporate tax in 2010.
D. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an objection on September 28, 201, but the said application was dismissed on November 9, 201, and the Plaintiff requested a trial to the Tax Tribunal on February 14, 2012, but the said request was dismissed on June 13, 2012.
E. On July 1, 2011, the Defendant revoked ex officio the disposition imposing corporate tax on July 1, 201 and stored the same.
[Based on Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply), and Eul evidence 7 in Eul, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate
A. The plaintiff's assertion
From 2007 to 2009, the Plaintiff spent OOOO members in total with advertising expenses, welfare expenses, facilities and equipment expenses, entertainment expenses, and transportation expenses as follows, and refunded OO members in total to the participants who revoked the application. Therefore, the above OOO members should be included in deductible expenses and should be excluded from gross income.
Gu Sector
2007
208
209
Total
Advertisement Expenses
OOO
OOO
OOO
OOO
Welfare expenses
OOO
OOO
OOO
OOO
Cancellation and Refund
OOO
OOO
OOO
OOO
Facilities and Equipment
OOO
OOO
OOO
OOO
Entertainment Expenses and Transportation Expenses
OOO
OOO
OOO
OOO
Consolidateds
OOO
OOO
OOO
OOO
B. Relevant statutes
It is as shown in the attached Form.
C. Determination
Unless special circumstances exist, such as where the tax authority finds any income omitted in the initial return of the relevant corporation by the method of on-site investigation, it shall be deemed that the corresponding purchaser was separately paid deductible expenses, such as the corresponding purchaser price, etc., were already included in the total deductible expenses corresponding to the total income. In such a case, if the tax authority had omitted the report on the expenses corresponding to the omission income and wants to obtain the deduction, it should be asserted and proved by the taxpayer who seeks to include the relevant expenses in the deductible expenses (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2673, Nov. 27, 2003).
(i)advertising expenses;
According to the statements in Gap evidence No. 3, it is recognized that the sum of the accounts in the name of the plaintiff's director from January 26, 2007 to December 21, 2007, including CCC, was remitted to each of the accounts in the name of the plaintiff's director, and that the sum of the accounts in the name of DD or other, from January 8, 2008 to September 13, 2008, was remitted to each of the accounts in the name of DD or other, and (3) from October 30, 209 to December 28, 2009 to EE.
Date and
Withdrawal Account
Deposit Accounts
Amount (won)
on January 26, 2007
BB
CCC
OOO
on October 31, 2005
DD
OOO
on 06 October 08, 2007
OOO
on 18, 2006
OOO
may 23, 2006
OOO
on October 04, 2007
OOO
on 31, 2008
OOO
on 17, 2007
OOO
October 06, 2007
OOO
October 17, 2007
OOO
October 27, 2007
OOO
November 07, 2007
OOO
December 2007
OOO
December 17, 2007
OOO
December 21, 2007
OOO
December 2007
F
OOO
Total
OOO
Date and
Withdrawal Account
Deposit Accounts
Amount (won)
on October 08, 2008
BB
DD
OOO
on October 17, 2008
OOO
on October 28, 2008
OOO
on 04 April 07, 2008
OOO
on October 06, 2008
OOO
on April 25, 2008
OOO
on 06 October 01, 2008
OOO
on 13, 2008
OOO
on 18, 2008
OOO
on April 24, 2008
OOO
on October 26, 2008
OOO
on 07 01.01
OOO
on October 2008 08
OOO
on 19, 2008
OOO
on October 06, 2008
OOO
on April 30, 2008
OOO
on October 2008 07
OOO
on January 13, 2008
OOO
on April 23, 2008
GG (HH)
OOO
Total
OOO
Date and
Withdrawal Account
Deposit Accounts
Amount (won)
October 30, 2009
BB
EE
OOO
November 07, 2009
OOO
November 16, 2009
OOO
November 23, 2009
OOO
December 05, 2009
OOO
December 14, 2009
OOO
December 21, 2009
OOO
December 28, 2009
OOO
Total
OOO
However, there is no objective evidence that the above OO directors (=OOO directors + OOO directors + OOO directors) had been disbursed for publicity of private teaching institutes operated by the plaintiff, etc., so this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.
2) Welfare expenses
According to the statements in the evidence No. 3, it is recognized that the sum of the accounts in the name of BB from January 25, 2007 to December 10, 2007, the sum of the accounts in the name of III, including III, was remitted, and that the sum of the accounts in the name of JJ, etc. from January 8, 2008 to December 16, 2008 was remitted respectively, and ③ from January 8, 2009 to December 8, 2009 to the account in the name of JJ, etc.
Date and
Withdrawal Account
Deposit Accounts
Amount (won)
on January 25, 2007
BB
III
OOO
on 04 04 09
JJ
OOO
on October 1, 2005
OOO
on 06 October 08, 2007
OOO
on 07 October 2007
OOO
on 1, 2008 09
OOO
on dice 08, 2007
OOO
on 21, 2007
OOO
October 11, 2007
OOO
November 1, 2007
OOO
December 10, 2007
OOO
may 13, 2007
KK
OOO
on January 27, 2007
OOO
on 21, 2007
OOO
on 13, 2008
LL
OOO
on 21, 2007
MM
OOO
on 21, 2007
NN
OOO
on 21, 2007
PPP
OOO
Total
OOO
Date and
Withdrawal Account
Deposit Accounts
Amount (won)
on October 08, 2008
BB
JJ
OOO
November 2008
OOO
on 1, 2008
OOO
on October 1, 2008
OOO
on 05 October 08, 2008
OOO
on 06 October 09, 2008
OOO
November 2008
OOO
on December 12, 2008
OOO
on October 1, 2008
OOO
October 10, 2008
OOO
November 07, 2008
OOO
December 1, 2008
OOO
on January 25, 2008
QQQ
OOO
December 2, 2008
RR
OOO
December 2, 2008
KK
OOO
December 16, 2008
OOO
October 17, 2008
SS
OOO
November 20, 2008
TT
OOO
Total
OOO
Date and
Withdrawal Account
Deposit Accounts
Amount (won)
on January 08, 2009
BB
JJ
OOO
on 02.02 07
OOO
on October 07, 2009
OOO
on October 08, 2009
OOO
on October 08, 2009
OOO
on 06 October 08, 2009
OOO
on October 07, 2009
OOO
on 19, 2009
OOO
on October 07, 2009
OOO
on October 1, 2009
OOO
October 01, 2009
OOO
October 11, 2009
OOO
November 07, 2009
OOO
December 08, 2009
OOO
on January 10, 2009
UU
OOO
on January 10, 2009
VV
OOO
on January 24, 2009
WW
OOO
October 01, 2009
OOO
on January 24, 2009
KK
OOO
on January 20, 2009
OOO
December 27, 2009
Economic Zone
OOO
on October 20, 2009
OOO
on October 15, 2009
Y Y
OOO
October 01, 2009
OOO
on October 07, 2009
ZZ;
OOO
on December 12, 2009
United States of America
OOO
on January 20, 2009
aa
OOO
on 19, 2009
bb
OOO
on 21, 2009
OOO
November 2009
QQQ
OOO
on 18, 2009
PPP
OOO
November 23, 2009
c c
OOO
Total
OOO
그러나 ① MMM， RRR， NNN， 김정우， III， bbb, ZZZ， XXX， YYY， ddd， eee， aaa， SSS 등이 원고의 직원이었다고 인정할 만한 객관적증거가 없는 점，② TTT， WWW， KKK， fff 등이 2007년부터 2009년까지 사이의 기간 동안 원고의 직원이었다고 인정할 만한 객관적 증거가 없는 점， ③ 2009. 1. 10. UUU 명의의 계좌로 송금된 OOOO원이 UUU의 조의금이라는 사실을 인정할 만한 객관적 증거가 없는 점， ④ 2009. 6. 12. 송금된 OOOO원이 ggg의 조의금이라는 사실을 인정할 만한 객관적 증거가 없는 점， ⑤ 2009. 11. 23. ccc 명의의 계좌로 송금된 OOOO원이 ccc의 축의금이라는 사실을 인정할 만한 객관적 증거가 없는 점， ⑥ 2009. 9. 18. PPP 명의의 계좌로 송금된 OOOO원이 hhh과 iii의 퇴직금이라는 사실을 인정할 만한 객관적 증거가 없는 점 등을 고려하면， 원고가 제출한 증거들만으로는 위 OOOO원(= OOOO원 + OOOO원 + OOOO원)이 원고가 고용한 직원들의 복리를 위하여 지출되었다고 인정하기에 부족하고， 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없으므로， 원고의 이 부분 주장은 이유 없다.
(iii) a revocation refund;
According to the statements in Gap evidence No. 3, it is recognized that the sum of the accounts in the name of BB from January 23, 2007 to December 27, 2007, as follows: (i) the sum of the accounts in the name of jj and others was remitted; (ii) the sum of the accounts in the name of kk and other from February 13, 2008 to December 8, 2008 was remitted respectively; and (iii) the sum of the accounts in the name of OOOs was remitted from January 15, 2009 to November 5, 2009.
However, it is hard to find that the plaintiff does not have any evidence to support that the plaintiff is responsible for the plaintiff's application, and that the plaintiff is not responsible for the plaintiff's application, under the following:O, OO, OO,O,O,O,O,O,O,O,O,O,O,O,O,O,O,O,O,O,O,O,O,O,O,O,O,O,O,,O,O,O,,O,O,,O,O,,O,O,,O,O,,O,O,O,O,O,O,O,O,O,O,,O,O,O,O,O,O,O,O,,O,O,O,,,O,O,O,,,O,O,,O,,O,,,O,,O,,,O,,,O,,,O,,,O,,,,O,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.....
(iv) facility equipment;
According to the statements in Gap evidence No. 3, it is recognized that the sum of the accounts in the name of BB from January 18, 2007 to September 5, 2007, and that the sum of the accounts in the name of OO and other titles was remitted, and that the sum of the OO members was remitted to the accounts in the name of OO on November 6, 2008, and third, from March 1, 2009 to December 3, 2009, each of the OO members was remitted to the accounts in the name of OO and other names.
However, there is no evidence that the Plaintiff paid OOO for cleaning air conditioners on January 2, 2007, and there is no objective evidence that the Plaintiff paid OOOE for the facilities of the private teaching institute operated by the Plaintiff (i.e., OO + OOO + OOOO). Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.
5) Entertainment expenses and transportation expenses;
According to the statements in Gap evidence No. 3, it is recognized that the sum of the OO members has been withdrawn from the account under BB from January 5, 2007 to December 31, 2007, and that the sum of the OO members has been withdrawn from January 7, 2008 to November 25, 2008, and three OO members have been withdrawn from January 7, 2009 to November 19, 2009, and that the sum of the OO members have been withdrawn from November 7, 2009 to November 19, 209, and transferred from March 24, 2009 to the account under the name of OO.
However, there is no objective evidence that the above OO directors (=OOO directors + OOO directors + OOO directors) paid for entertainment expenses and transportation expenses. Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is groundless.
3. Conclusion
Then, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.