Examination Income 2012-0137 ( October 22, 2012)

Since the Plaintiff did not take over the obligations of the former representative of the non-party corporation, the part on the disposition of this case is unlawful.

It is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff acquired shares of BB after the Plaintiff was appointed as the representative director of BB, or that the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff had taken capital reduction at the ratio of shares held by shareholders after the cessation of business of BB, unlike the allegations in this case, and that the Plaintiff had taken off capital reduction at the ratio of shares held by the shareholders after the cessation of business of BB, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Article 66 (Determination and Correction)

2013Guhap10435 Global income and revocation of disposition

United StatesA

Head of Sungnam Tax Office

October 17, 2013

November 7, 2013

1. On January 2, 2012, the Defendant’s disposition of imposition of the global income tax for the Plaintiff on January 2, 2012, exceeding the OOO won, shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. One-seven of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

Cheong-gu Office

On January 2, 2012, the Defendant revoked the imposition of the global income tax OOO for the Plaintiff on January 2, 2012.

1. Details of the disposition;

"BB Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "B") was established on March 20, 200 for the purpose of wholesale business of computer peripheral devices on May 31, 2007. The plaintiff was appointed as the representative director of BB on December 29, 2006 and entered in the corporate register on January 4, 2007." (B) The director of this tax office conducted on-site verification of BB from January 28, 2009 to February 17, 2009 without recovering short-term bonds amounting to the representative director of BB, but the representative director of the BB was removed from the corporate register on the part of the representative director of the BB, but the other director of the BB was not recovered from the corporate tax of the O, but the director of the BB was notified to the defendant that the O was not recovered from the corporate tax of the O as necessary expenses of the O, but the 2000 O was not known to the plaintiff.

C. On January 2, 2012, the Defendant decided and notified the Plaintiff on January 2, 2012 (hereinafter “instant disposition”). D. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for examination with the National Tax Service on July 30, 2012. On October 22, 2012, the Commissioner of the National Tax Service rendered a review on whether the Plaintiff received the shareholder, executive officer, and short-term employee short-term employee bonds included in the BB’s settlement of accounts from the representative director before the Plaintiff was appointed as the representative director of BB’s BB on October 22, 2012 to determine whether to impose global income tax by re-auditing whether the Plaintiff received the shareholder, executive officer, and employee short-term employee bonds included in the BB’s settlement of accounts.

E. According to the above review and determination, from November 12, 2012 to December 23, 2012, the Defendant re-examineed whether the Plaintiff acquired OOO of shareholders’ short-term bonds from Park E, the former representative director of BB, and notified the Plaintiff of the results of the tax investigation on December 13, 2012, that the instant disposition is legitimate, and that the investigation is terminated without correction.

F. Meanwhile, in the instant disposition, the global income tax imposed on the Plaintiff for the year 2007 is the global income tax imposed on the Plaintiff if the Plaintiff disposes of the instant disposition as a bonus vested in the Plaintiff, excluding short-term bonds held by stockholders and short-term bonds held by stockholders, among the instant disposition, as a bonus vested in the Plaintiff.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4, Eul evidence 1-1, 2, 3, 2-1, 2, and 4-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) As to the part regarding the short-term bonds held by shareholders and executives

The above claim was already occurred before the plaintiff was appointed as the representative director of BB, and the representative director collected the amount of OOOO as of December 5, 2006, and the balance remains OOO. Although the plaintiff did not take over the above obligation from the former representative director, the disposition of this case which was disposed of as the bonus belonging to the plaintiff was unlawful.

(2) On December 31, 2006, as to the portion of the amount for which collection of sales claims, etc. is unclear, an OOO member was recovered from among the sales claims listed on the balance sheet on the corporate tax return of BB on December 31, 2006, and among them, the OOO member was a representative retirement pay; the OOO employee was a payment of the purchase debt; the vehicle installment payment was the electric payment of the vehicle; and the OOO employee was used for the short-term loan of the shareholders, but the use of the OO member was unclear among them, and the disposition of this case was unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) First, we examine the part concerning the part concerning the short-term bonds of shareholders and directors.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 8 (including the number of branch offices), it can be acknowledged that ① as of December 31, 2006, the balance sheet of BB, the shareholders, executives, and employees short-term bonds are included in the OE as of December 31, 2006. However, it is found that ParkE was a director of BB on July 15, 2004, who was appointed as a director of BB on December 29, 2006, and ParkE was liable for the debt of BB. ② ParkE was a representative director of BB, and that the plaintiff did not acquire the above OE's provisional payment obligation while taking office as the representative director of BB, and that the plaintiff acquired the shares of the representative director of BB after taking office as of December 31, 2006, or that there was no evidence that the plaintiff acquired the shares of BB, unlike the plaintiff's previous assertion that it was unlawful for the plaintiff to dispose of the shares of BE.

(2) Next, we examine the part concerning OOO's claims, etc. whose explanation as to whether to recover is unclear.

As long as the revenue of a corporation that was released from the register is not recorded in the book, it is inevitable to dispose of it as a bonus for the representative pursuant to Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act and the proviso of Article 106(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, so long as the revenue of the corporation is not clearly attributed, and in this case, the burden of proving that it is clear that it belongs to the representative is taxpayer (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Nu6747, Aug

On December 31, 2006, the amount equivalent to the OO's won was recovered from among the OO's members, such as the standard sales bonds, etc., among which the amount was paid by the OO members due to the payment of the purchase debt for FF engineering, and the fact that the OO members was paid as the payment in 2007 was also the defendant, but it is insufficient to recognize that the above recovered amount was used as the representative's retirement allowance, etc. as claimed by the plaintiff in excess of the above recognized amount, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

(3) Therefore, the disposal of the portion of the Plaintiff’s short-term bonds issued by the Defendant, other than the shareholder officers’ short-term bonds issued by the Defendant, among the OO directors that disposed of as a bonus vested in the Plaintiff, is lawful, and the portion in excess is unlawful. As seen earlier, the global income tax imposed on the Plaintiff for the year 2007 when the disposal of the income is deemed as the bonus vested in the Plaintiff. As such, the global income tax imposed on the Plaintiff should be deemed as the global income tax imposed on the Plaintiff when the disposal of the income is carried out by deeming it as the bonus vested in the Plaintiff. Therefore, the portion in excess of the above OO0 among the instant disposition should be revoked as unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.