National Tax Service Review Income 2010-0029 (2010.03)

The disposition imposing the comprehensive income tax on the nominal representative director on the corporate register shall be illegal.

Even if a person is registered as a representative director on the corporate register of the company, if he/she does not actually operate the company concerned, no comprehensive income tax shall be imposed on such person as his/her income unknown to him/her

2010Guhap3446 Global income and revocation of disposition

○ Kim

○ Head of tax office

1. The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 17,304,00 on September 1, 2009 against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

2. The litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Circumstances of dispositions;

A. A. From November 2005, 2005, ○○ Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”) received a processed tax invoice of KRW 80,000,000 from △△ Construction Co., Ltd., and reported and paid corporate tax in 2005 by including the processed tax invoice of KRW 80,000,00 in deductible expenses, and closed the business around June 2006.

B. At the time of 2005, the director of the Yangcheon Tax Office having jurisdiction over the domicile of the company of this case corrected the corporate tax base by excluding the above 80,000,000 won as deductible expenses, and disposed of the bonus of 88,00,000 won including value added tax to the plaintiff who was the joint representative director of the company of this case, and notified the defendant having jurisdiction over the plaintiff's domicile of change of income amount. On September 1, 2009, the defendant notified the plaintiff of the correction and notification of the global income tax of 17,304,380 won (hereinafter "the disposition of this case").

[Ground of recognition] Facts without any dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff only lent the name of representative director upon the request of leapA, and there was no fact that he was involved in the management of the company of this case.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes shall be as follows.

C. Determination

(1) Under the Corporate Tax Act, the purpose of the system is not to establish the representative on the basis of the fact that such income is generated, but to consider the fact that it can be recognized as such act in order to prevent unfair conduct under tax laws by a corporation, regardless of its substance. In such a case, the representative of a corporation subject to bonus disposition shall be strictly interpreted (see Supreme Court Decision 93Nu1176, Mar. 8, 1994). In such a case, even if a person is registered as the representative on the corporate register of a company, if the company was not actually operated, the income of the company cannot be assessed by devolving upon the former. However, since a person who is registered as the representative on the corporate register can be presumed to be actually operating the company, the representative on the corporate register must prove that the representative on the corporate register actually failed to operate the company (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du18116, Dec. 23, 2010).

(2) We examine the following facts: Gap's evidence Nos. 4 through 6, 8, Eul's evidence Nos. 2 through 5, and Eul's testimony of some witnesses leapA: (i) on February 9, 2004, GimB was appointed as the representative director of the company of this case, but resigned on October 20, 2005; (ii) on October 26, 2004, ParkCC was appointed as the representative director on August 20, 2005; and (iii) on October 20, 2005, the plaintiff was appointed as the representative director on October 20, 2005; and (iv) on the premise that the plaintiff was not a representative director of the company of this case from around 205 to 4, the plaintiff was not a representative director of the company of this case on the premise that the plaintiff was not a representative director of the company of this case, but a representative director of Kim Jong-B and Ga's testimony.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.