early 2013west 3369

Even if a rice purchase invoice was received by processing, if the rice purchaser confirms it, it is subject to inclusion in deductible expenses.

Even if an entrusted school meal service company receives a rice purchase bill as a processing and includes it as deductible expenses, if the actual rice purchaser and the purchase amount are confirmed by the financial data, the amount shall be included in deductible expenses as the purchase price of rice.

Article 19 (Scope of Deductible Expenses)

Article 19 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act

2014Guhap67826 Revocation of Disposition of Corporate Tax Imposition

주식회사 ㅁㅁㅁㅁㅁ

ㅇㅇ세무서장

May 22, 2015

June 12, 2015

1. Disposition imposing corporate tax of KRW 00,000,00 (including additional tax) on the Plaintiff on February 1, 2013, 2008, and notifying the change in the amount of income for the business year 2008 (Reversion: AA, and amount of income

: To revoke all of KRW 000,000,000.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a juristic person established on October 0, 2001 and primarily engaged in group meal service business, restaurant business and related consulting business, and manufacturing and selling food and health food beverages.

B. In around 2008, the Plaintiff received an invoice of KRW 000,000,000 (hereinafter “instant invoice”) issued by BB Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “BB Co., Ltd.”) and filed a corporate tax return for the business year 2008, and included the above KRW 00,000,000 in the expenses of purchasing rice in the calculation of losses.

C. On February 1, 2013, the Defendant issued a notice of change in the amount of income for the business year 2008 (including additional taxes) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the instant invoice constitutes an invoice different from the fact,” and that it was corrected and notified as KRW 00,00,000 corporate tax for the business year 2008,000 (including additional taxes) from the supply value of the instant invoice, and that it is unclear that the amount of the above KRW 00,000,000 that was released from the company is attributed to the representative, and then disposed of as a representative on the same day.

D. On October 00, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the Defendant, but was dismissed on October 0, 2013. The Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on October 00, 2013. The Plaintiff filed an adjudication on the tax Tribunal on October 0, 2013, and the Tax Tribunal deemed that the Plaintiff actually purchased KRW 00,000,000, out of the above KRW 00,000,000 on October 00, 2014, deemed that the Plaintiff was actually purchased, and accordingly, included it in the deductible expenses for the business year 2008, corrected the tax base and the amount of corporate tax for the business year 2008, calculated by subtracting the amount of income equivalent to the above amount, and dismissed the remaining

E. Accordingly, on October 00, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the change in income amount of KRW 00,000 in corporate tax for the business year 2008 (hereinafter “instant disposition imposing corporate tax for the business year 2008, which was first imposed on February 1, 2013”), and notified the Plaintiff’s representative director that the remaining amount of income remains after deducting KRW 00,000,000 from the initial income amount of the Plaintiff’s representative director’s AA (hereinafter “instant disposition”), which was later notified of the change in income amount of KRW 200,000 (hereinafter “instant disposition”), and the disposition imposing corporate tax for the business year 2008, which was revised as above, and all of the dispositions of this case including the instant disposition imposing corporate tax and the notice of the change in income amount of this case.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 4, 8 through 14, 20 evidence, Eul evidence 1 to 6

Each entry, witness BB's testimony, whole purport of the pleading

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Although the instant invoice is a different invoice by a supplier, the Plaintiff purchased rice equivalent to the amount of the issues in fact through BB’s brokerage, and paid 00,000,000,000 to the Plaintiff directly account or in cash to BB, a rice supplier, and the difference between the issues amount and the above 00,000,000 won is the amount at the time of settlement of accounts or in cash. Accordingly, each of the instant dispositions based on the premise that there is no rice purchase equivalent to the issues amount is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) In a case where the taxing authority proves that an invoice on a part of the expenses reported by the taxpayer was prepared without real transactions to a considerable extent that it is an actual expense and it is disputed as to whether it is an actual expense and the other party to the payment of the expenses alleged by the taxpayer was proved to a considerable extent, the taxpayer needs to prove that it is easy for the taxpayer to present data, such as account books and evidence regarding the fact that such expenses have been actually paid (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Du1439, Aug. 20, 2009).

(ii) the facts of recognition

"가) 원고의 대표이사 AAA은 원고 회사를 운영하는 한편, 2001. 0. 00. 상호를DDDDD'으로 하여 사업자등록을 하고 현재까지 단체급식 위탁운영업을 영위하고 있다. 원고는 2008 사업연도(2008. 1. 1. ~ 2008. 12. 31.)에 ㄱㄱ중학교, ㄴㄴ중학교,ㄷㄷ중학교, ㄹㄹ중학교, ㅁㅁ고등학교의 단체급식을 제공하였고, AAA 운영의 개인사업체 'DDDDD'은 같은 기간 ㅂㅂ대학교와 ㅅㅅ고등학교의 단체급식을 제공하였다.",나) 원고와 AAA 운영의 개인사업체 'DDDDD'은 2008년 단체급식에 사용한 쌀 전부를 BBB의 중개로 매입하였는데, 1포당 20㎏짜리 쌀을 월 평균 000포~050포 가량 매입하였고, 쌀 1포당 단가는 43,000원~44,000원이었다.

C) Upon reporting the tax base and tax amount of the corporate tax on the income for the business year 2008, the Plaintiff reported the amount of income as KRW 0,500,000,000,000 (amount of income (amount of KRW 0,500,000,000) (amount of income) and KRW 00,000,000 on the current-term net profit on the settlement of accounts (amount of income 0,500,000 on the settlement of accounts). The amount of insurance premium was added to deductible expenses. Meanwhile, AA reported the tax base of the global income tax for the business year 2008, while reporting the tax base of the global income tax for the business year 2008.

D) As evidence of the cost of purchasing rice in the business year 2008, the Plaintiff submitted the account statement of this case to the Defendant as to the total value of KRW 00,000,000,000, the total value of supply issued by the EEF, the account statement of KRW 00,000,000, the total value of supply issued by the FFF, and the total value of supply amount of KRW 000,000,000 (the total cost of purchasing rice reported by the Plaintiff shall be KRW 00,000,000,000). Meanwhile, AA submitted the account statement to the Defendant as evidence of the total value of supply issued by the EE in the business year 2008, with the total amount of supply value of KRW 00,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won issued by the FFFF, and received the account statement from the Defendant.

E) The Plaintiff’s representative director: 00,000 won (i.e., 00,000 won transferred on December 1, 2008 + 00,000 won transferred on December 2, 2008 + 00,000,000 won (i.e., 00,000 won) from each passbook under the name of “AA” and “DDDD” to the deposit account of theCC corporation which is a rice supplier: 00,000,000 won [i.e., 00,000,000 won transferred from the passbook under the name of “A” + 0.0,000,000 won + 0.0,000 won on October 1, 200, 2009 + 000,000 won on September 2, 2009

(f) The Plaintiff’s representative director paid 0.0 billion won to 00,000 won in the name of 00,000,000 won in the name of 00,000,000 won in the name of 00,000,000 won in the name of 00,000,000 won in the name of 0.0,000 won in the name of 00,000,000 won in the name of 0.0,000,000 won in the name of 0,000,000 won in the name of 0.0,000,000 won in the name of 0,000.0,000 won in the name of 0,000,000 won in the name of 0,0000,000 won in the name of 0,0000 won in the name of 0,000.

G) On the other hand, in 201, the KK director of the tax office accused the BB corporation as a violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act on the grounds that the 'BB' corporation was issued a processed statement of at least KRW 00 million to the prosecution in 2008.' [the grounds for recognition], [the grounds for recognition], the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 7, 25, 27, 30, 34, 36, 41 through 44 (including the relevant number), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 7, testimony of B witnessB, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

3) In 2008, the Plaintiff submitted the instant account statement corresponding to the facts to the Defendant without purchasing rice from BB Co., Ltd., and there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the Plaintiff did not pay KRW 00,000,000,000, which is the aggregate of the supply values of the instant account statement, to BB Co., Ltd. Therefore, the Plaintiff, who is easy to present account books and documentary evidence, must prove that the issue amount calculated by deducting KRW 00,000,000, which is the aggregate of supply values of the instant account statement, was actually disbursed as rice purchase costs in the business year 2008.

In full view of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff appears to have actually purchased rice equivalent to the key amount through the intermediation of BB, based on the following circumstances: (a) the above facts and the evidence revealed in Gap’s evidence Nos. 39, 40, 41, 47, and 48; and (b) the purport of the entire pleadings.

A) Due to the characteristics of group meal service business: (i) time interval of 00 won at the time of purchase of food materials for group meal service x 00 won for a long time; (ii) most of the expenses for group meal service excluding labor cost ± sales cost of 00 won; (iii) rice purchase cost of 00% for each month in comparison with sales or revenues of other materials; (iv) if the same person as a representative of a legal entity and an individual group meal service business, it seems that the ratio of the Plaintiff’s purchase cost of rice for 00% in total x 000 won in total x 000 won in total 00 won in total x 000 won in total in total in total in the amount of revenue of the legal entity; (v) purchase cost of rice for 00% in total in the amount of revenue of the legal entity; (v) purchase cost of 00% in total in the amount of revenue of the legal entity; (v) purchase cost of 00% in total in the amount of revenue of the legal entity.

B) 00,000,000 won (i.e., at least 43,000 won per 20 kilograms rice x monthly average 000 x 12 months) when the 'DDDDD' of the Plaintiff and AA’ was estimated by the testimony of the witness BB in 2008 (i.e., at least 43,000 won per 20 kilograms rice x monthly average 000 x 44,000 won per 20 kilograms rice x monthly average 00 kilograms x 000 x 12 months). Thus, the above estimated amount is considerably different from the total amount of 00,000 won for rice purchase reported by the Plaintiff in 208 and the total amount of 00,000,000 won for rice purchase, and 00,000,000 won for rice purchase, and 00,000,000.

C) From October 00, 2008 to March 00, 2009, when combined with 00,000,000,000 won in cash withdrawn on February 00, 2009 and 0,000,000 won in cash that was remitted toCC corporation, a rice supplier, from October 00, 2008 to March 00, 2009, the difference between the controversial amount of 00,000,000,000 won is nothing more than 0,000 won. The Plaintiff’s remittance amount toCC corporation is 00,000,000,000 won in rice purchase costs for rice for 2008 and the FFF, or 2008 of the “DDD for the operation of individual food materials of AAAD”, and there is no other material that can be seen as the remittance cost for rice purchase other than the above remitted amount.

D) The Plaintiff paid the amount equivalent to 92.7% of the key amount to the account of theCC corporation, which was known by BB as an individual among rice (i.e., 00,000,000 won ± the key amount ± 000,000,000 x 100,000, and 100 decimal point x the minority) to which the said amount was returned. There is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff received the said amount thereafter.

4) Therefore, each of the instant dispositions on different premise is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.