early trial 2012 Middle 4801 ( December 31, 2012)

In the case of entry in the register, the full amount shall be deemed to have been leaked outside the company, except in extenuating circumstances.

If the sales are omitted and reported, unless it is proved that the deductible expenses, such as the corresponding sales cost, etc., have been paid separately from the sales cost already reported by the plaintiff corporation, this is already included in the deductible expenses corresponding to the total sales revenue.

2013Guhap1599 Revocation of Disposition of Notice of Change in Income Amount

O Farming Association

O commissioner of regional tax office

August 21, 2014

September 25, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

Of the notice of change in the amount of income stated in attached Form 1, which the Defendant made to the Plaintiff on August 6, 2012, the part seeking cancellation by the Plaintiff among the notice of change in the amount of income is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation established on June 1, 2009 and engaged in agriculture and real estate sales business, etc., and the ODC Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ODP”) was established on June 15, 2009 and is engaged in real estate development, brokerage, sale and purchase business, and sale business, etc. Meanwhile, thisAA served as the representative director of the Plaintiff by January 9, 2012 after its establishment.

B. As a result of conducting a tax investigation on the Plaintiff and the non-party company from April 6, 2012 to May 5, 2013, the Defendant: (a) conducted the tax investigation on the Plaintiff and the non-party company; (b) from November 2010 to June 201, ○○○○○○.

The sales of the real property of ○○○ 617, and 4 other than 617 are omitted;

It was confirmed that the total cost was excessive.

(c)The defendant's excessive appropriation of the plaintiff's sales omission (2010 OOO, 201 OOO, 201 hereinafter referred to as "in the case's sales omission") and personnel expenses.

(OOwon in the business year 2010 and OOwon in the business year 2011) disposed of as a bonus to EA as the Plaintiff’s representative’s bonus to EA, and notified each change in the income amount as stated in attached Form 1 on August 1, 2012 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on October 25, 2012 regarding the omitted sales amount of the instant disposition, but was dismissed on March 30, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The omitted amount of sales of this case shall be various expenses, taxes, such as telephone charges, rents, etc. of the non-party company.

Fees and land purchase fees paid to members were used, which is not the amount that the Plaintiff lent to the non-party company, but not the amount that was leaked. Therefore, the instant disposition that disposed of the amount omitted from the sales as a bonus to the representative is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

m. Corporate Tax Act

Article 67 (Disposal of Income)

When filing a report on the corporate tax base on the income for each business year pursuant to Article 60 or determining or revising the corporate tax base pursuant to Article 66 or 69, the amount included in the calculation of earnings shall be disposed of to the person to whom the income belongs, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as bonus, dividend, other outflow and internal reservation.

(1) The former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23589, Feb. 2, 2012)

§ 106. Disposal of income

(1) The amount included in the gross income under Article 67 of the Act shall be disposed of as provided for in the following subparagraphs. The same shall also apply to non-profit domestic corporations and non-profit foreign corporations:

1. Where the amount included in the calculation of earnings has clearly leaked out of the company, it shall be divided into dividends, bonuses from disposition of profits, other income, and other outflow out of the company according to the following items according to the person to whom it reverts: Provided, That it is unclear to whom it reverts, it shall be deemed to have been reverted to the representative (where an executive who is not a minority shareholder, etc. and persons with a special relationship under Article 43 (8) together holds more than 30/100 of the total number of issued stocks or total amount of investment of the relevant corporation and actually controls the operation of the corporation, he/she shall be deemed to have been the representative, and where there are not less than two representatives, de facto

(a) Where the person of accrual is a stockholder (not including stockholders who are officers or employees), the dividends of the person of accrual;

(b) If the person to whom it belongs is an officer or employee, the bonus to the person to whom it reverts;

(c) Where the person to whom it belongs is a corporation or an individual operating the business, other outflow from the company: Provided, That it shall be limited to where the distributed profit constitutes the income for each business year of a domestic corporation or a domestic business place of a foreign corporation under the provisions of Article 94 of the Act or the business income of a resident or a non-resident under

(d) Other income of the person to whom it reverts, in case where the person to whom it reverts is the person.

(4) Where a domestic corporation recovers the amount illegally flown out of Korea, such as omission of sales and processing expenses, within the period for report of modification under Article 45 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and files a report by including it in gross income as tax adjustment, the disposition of income shall be deemed internal reserve: Provided, That this shall not apply to any of the following cases in which it

1. Where it has received a notice of tax investigation;

2. Where it becomes aware of the commencement of the tax investigation;

3. Where a tax official takes a local business trip or starts confirmation affairs to collect taxation data or handle civil petitions;

4. Where he receives a notice of explanation of taxation data from the chief of tax office having jurisdiction over tax payment.

5. Where the fact of outflow from the company is confirmed in the investigation or trial by an investigative agency;

6. Where it is deemed that correction has been made, where matters under subparagraphs 1 through 5 are similar to those under subparagraphs 5.

C. Determination

1) If a corporation fails to enter its sales in an account book despite a fact of sales, the omitted sales amount shall be deemed to have been leaked to the company. The revenue of the corporation out of the account book shall be disposed of as a bonus for the representative, unless the ownership of the revenue is clear. In such a case, the special circumstance that the omitted sales amount is not leaked to the company or the ownership of the revenue is clear shall be proved by the person liable for duty payment who asserts it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du3855, Jun. 26, 2008). If the corporation did not enter the sales in the account book despite the fact of sales despite the fact of sales, the total omitted sales amount including response expenses, such as the cost of sales, shall be deemed to have been leaked to the company, barring any special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu19151, May 25, 199).

2) In full view of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff’s failure to enter the amount omitted in the account book of this case in the account book does not conflict between the parties, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit, given that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone was insufficient to deem that the amount omitted in the sales was not leaked out of the company, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

A) The amount of the instant omission in sales was transferred from the account under the Plaintiff’s name to the account under the name of thisA.

B) The Plaintiff did not include the amount omitted in sales as a loan to the non-party company on the account book, while the non-party company appropriated the amount omitted in sales as a loan to the non-party company on the account book, and the non-party company appropriated the OO won in the business year 2010 and the OO won in the business year 2011. As alleged by the Plaintiff, even if the amount omitted in sales was transferred from thisA to the non-party company again, it is reasonable to view

C) The plaintiff asserts that the amount omitted in the sales of this case was corrected later as a loan to the non-party company, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and even if a revised return was filed as above, it can be deemed as a retained earnings where the amount out of the company was included in the gross income with prior knowledge that it was corrected as it became known that it was commenced.

[Article 106 (4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23589, Feb. 2, 2012)]

D) It is difficult to view the amount of money that the Plaintiff used for business employees for fees or purchase of land as deductible expenses for the business year 2010 and 2011, which was already reported by inclusion in deductible expenses, as deductible expenses omitted or equivalent expenses.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.