Whether the processing personnel expenses are appropriated

The disposition of this case that imposed global income tax is legitimate on the ground that no evidentiary document exists, such as the original market register of benefits proving that the Plaintiff had regularly paid benefits, the details of the withdrawal and retirement, etc., or the details of financial transactions, etc., and no relevant necessary expenses are included.

Article 27 (Calculation of Necessary Expenses)

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

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposing global income tax amounting to KRW 3,088,930 for the Plaintiff on December 1, 2004, KRW 2,540,350 for the global income tax for the year 2001, KRW 1,445,70 for the global income tax for the year 2002, KRW 1,487,920 for the global income tax for the year 2003, and KRW 1,487,920 for the global income tax for the year 203 is revoked (in the case of global income tax for the year 200 and 200 for the year 200, the Plaintiff’s disposition was imposed together with the Plaintiff’s wife ○.

1. Details of the imposition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the whole pleadings in the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2-2, 7-1, 2, 3, 1-1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3, Eul evidence Nos. 4-1, 2, and 7-1 through 4.

A. On December 22, 1989, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of four-story neighborhood living facilities and housing (○○ building; hereinafter “instant business establishment”) on the ground of ○○○○○○○○ Dong, ○○○○○○○○○○○○, and thereafter operated real estate rental business at the instant business establishment from around that time.

B. As a result of a comprehensive tax investigation on the Plaintiff around November 2, 2004, the Defendant discovered the omission of the Plaintiff’s tax amount of KRW 40,339,99 ( KRW 8,800,000, KRW 8,100,000, KRW 8,500, KRW 545, KRW 12,585,454, KRW 12,585, and KRW 454) from the date of the instant business establishment over 200 to the global income amount, and then excluded the necessary expenses calculated by the Plaintiff during the said business period from the total amount of KRW 40,39, and KRW 40, KRW 200, KRW 200, KRW 308, KRW 200, KRW 208, KRW 30, KRW 208, KRW 208, KRW 200, KRW 208, KRW 201, KRW 368,201.

C. On February 16, 2005, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office for adjudication on August 18, 2005, and the National Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on January 24, 2006.

2. Defenses before the merits;

A. Among the instant disposition, the Defendant’s portion of global income tax for the tax years 2000 and 2001 was imposed on the Plaintiff’s wife ○○. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that there was no standing to seek revocation of the global income tax for the tax years 200 and 2001.

(b) Related statutes;

○ The former Income Tax Act

Article 1 (Scope of Tax Liability)

(3) The principal income earner and his spouse shall be jointly and severally liable for tax on property income taxed by summing up under Article 61.

Article 61 (Cumulative Taxation on Property Income)

(1) If a resident or his/her spouse has any interest, dividend or real estate rental income (hereinafter referred to as "property income"), the principal income earner prescribed by Presidential Decree between the resident and his/her spouse (hereinafter referred to as "principal income earner") shall be deemed to have property income of his/her spouse (hereinafter referred to as "spouse subject to summing up of assets"), and the tax amount shall be calculated by summing it up in the global income

○ Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act

Article 120 (Scope of Principal Income Earners)

The term “principal income earner as prescribed by the Presidential Decree” in Article 61 (1) of the Act means those falling under one of the following subparagraphs:

1. A resident or his/her spouse who has global income, other than asset income;

2. A person who has no global income other than the amount of assets or has the same amount of assets.

3. Where both the amount of property income and the amount of global income, other than property income, are the same, a person entered as the principal income earner in the final return on tax base: Provided, That where the principal income earner is not entered in the final return on tax base or no return is submitted, it

C. Determination

According to Articles 2(2) and 61(1) of the former Income Tax Act, with respect to the property income of a resident and a spouse subject to the aggregate of real estate rental income of a resident and a spouse subject to the aggregate of assets, the principal income earner bears the tax amount calculated by adding up his/her partnership income. In cases where the property income has been added up by a single tax payment notice to the principal income earner, his/her spouse may file a complaint within the scope of joint and several tax liability for the existence and scope of his/her property income subject to the taxation, even if there is no separate tax payment notice for the said income (see Supreme Court Decision 92Nu1257

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s global income tax for the year 200 and 2001, which was imposed and notified to the Plaintiff’s wife ○○ in the instant disposition, was subject to cumulative taxation with respect to the Plaintiff’s real estate rental income acquired at the instant workplace, which is the principal income earner, and thus, the Plaintiff has a standing to object to the existence and scope of the tax amount, even if there is no separate tax payment notice on assets. Therefore, the Defendant’s prior defense on the merits is without merit.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

From 2000 to 2003, the Plaintiff, who was running the real estate rental business, provided cleaning services to the Plaintiff and received monthly allowances from the Plaintiff. As such, the personnel expenses paid to the said Park ○○ shall also be deducted as necessary expenses for the real estate rental business income of this case.

(b) Related statutes;

○ Income Tax Act

Article 27 (Calculation of Necessary Expenses)

(1) In calculating real estate rental income, business income, temporary property income, other income, or forestry income, the necessary expenses to be included shall be the sum of expenses corresponding to the total amount of income in the current year and generally accepted.

Article 160-2 (Reception and Preservation of Evidence of Expenditures, etc.)

(1) Where a resident intends to calculate necessary expenses pursuant to Article 27 in calculating real estate rental income, business income, temporary property income, other income, or forestry income, he/she shall receive evidential documents on the disbursement of such expenses and keep them for five years from the end of the final return period.

C. Determination

(1) In a case where a tax disposition was rendered based on the on-site investigation decision, the taxpayer should assert and prove that the necessary expenses corresponding to the omitted sales exist (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du12786, Dec. 12, 2003).

(2) Therefore, it is difficult to believe that there is no documentary evidence, such as the original market or financial transaction details, such as the wage ledger proving that the Plaintiff paid the benefits on a regular basis to 00 through 2003, in this case, where there is no documentary evidence, such as the original market or financial transaction details, such as the wage ledger proving that 00 through 200 through 203 provided cleaning services at the instant workplace, and the wage and salary income, which corresponds to the Plaintiff’s assertion, all of the statements in No. 3-1, No. 2, No. 4, No. 5-3 and the witness Park ○, which correspond to the Plaintiff’s assertion, and the witness’s testimony at 00 through 2, No. 1, 2, and 3 are merely a unilateral statement by 00, or merely a statement

(3) Therefore, the Defendant’s imposition of this case by excluding the personnel expenses of Park Poe-○ from the necessary expenses is a legitimate disposition under the Income Tax Act and subordinate statutes.

4. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit, and it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.