Examination Corporation 2008-0047 ( December 26, 2008)

Exclusion of Processing Tax Invoice from Losses

Cases of non-deductible disposition in respect of the receipt of a processed tax invoice by the constructor

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

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 167,412,450 of corporate tax in 2004 against the Plaintiff on April 1, 2008 (the date of the complaint appears to be a clerical error in April 2, 2008) is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company that runs the construction business, etc., and was issued a processing tax invoice of KRW 450,857,000 (including value-added tax) by the AA industry and BB industry, and reported corporate tax by including it in deductible expenses for the business year 2004.

B. On April 1, 2008, the Defendant issued a correction and notification of KRW 167,412,450 of the corporate tax in 2004 to the Plaintiff on the ground that the instant tax invoice was the processed tax invoice received without a real transaction (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry into private theory, Gap 1, 2, Eul 1-4 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In 200, the Plaintiff entered into a sub-subcontract with the Youngnam Railroad Construction Co., Ltd. in 2003 and paid 620,180,000 won as the subcontract price for the development of theCC industry. However, only 330,000,000 won was issued from the development of theCC industry. In addition, the Plaintiff entered into a sub-subcontract with the Youngnam Railroad Construction Co., Ltd. and paid 108,315,000 won as the subcontract price for the construction of the English elementary school in 2004, the Plaintiff paid 108,315,000 won as the subcontract price for the construction of the English elementary school in 204.

The plaintiff received processed tax invoices and became an deductible industry as a result of the failure to issue the tax invoice despite the actual payment of the price, and the disposition of this case which did not recognize the inclusion in deductible expenses under the premise that the subcontract price was not actually paid.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) In the event that a tax invoice on a part of the expenses reported by a taxpayer has been prepared in a false manner without a real transaction, which is proved to a considerable extent by the tax authority as to whether it is an actual cost, and the purpose of the expenses alleged by the taxpayer and the other party to the payment thereof have been proved to a considerable extent, the taxpayer needs to prove that it is easy for the taxpayer to present data, such as books and evidence, regarding the fact that such expenses have been actually paid (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du1439, Aug. 20,

(2) In the instant case, the Plaintiff is a processing tax invoice that the instant tax invoice was received without a real transaction, and there is no subcontract agreement concluded with the saidCC industry development, HanF and EE, etc. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff is consistent with the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff paid the subcontract price of KRW 108,315,00 for the payment of the subcontract price of KRW 620,180,00 for the development of theCC industry and the payment of KRW 108,315,00 for the subcontract price of KRW 10,00 for the payment of the subcontract price of KRW 108,312, and each of the testimony of KRW 11 and 12, as well as evidence submitted by the Plaintiff is insufficient to acknowledge it.

(3) Therefore, we cannot accept the Plaintiff’s assertion based on the premise that each of the above subcontracts was actually paid.

3. Conclusion

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