Seoul Administrative Court-2017-Gu Partnership-72799 ( January 13, 2018)

Whether a corporation can be deemed the amount of income of the corporation when it received a third-party corporation without receiving a sales incentive directly from the seller.

Even if a corporation is in a position to receive sales incentives from its seller but the representative director of the corporation received them through a third-party corporation representing the corporation, it can be deemed the amount of the rebates revenue of the corporation.

Article 11 of the Corporate Tax Act

2018Nu64902 Revocation of Disposition of Corporate Tax Imposition

○○ Incorporated Company

○ Head of tax office

November 15, 2018

December 6, 2018

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The corporate tax for the business year 2011 that the defendant against the plaintiff on October 19, 2016

**********,****, corporate tax for the business year 2012***,**,**,**, corporate tax for the business year 2013***,***,***,***, corporate tax for the business year 2014****,** each disposition of imposition (including additional tax) of*.

1. cite of the reasons for the written judgment in the first instance;

The reasoning of this Court concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for those written by the court as stated in Paragraph (2). Thus, this Court shall accept it in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

7 The portion of “Plaintiff” in the 11st line shall be considered as “AA”.

7 The part of "the answer from July 1, 2016" of one column of "the answer from July 1, 2016 (Evidence B (Evidence B) and August 10, 2016 (Evidence B (Evidence 5)" of "the answer from July 1, 2016 and the witness examination report from August 10, 2016."

8 Under 8, "A is engaged in automobile information provision business and insurance agency business," and "A has been engaged in automobile sales agency business and automobile information provision business from the time of establishment to October 20, 2014, and has deleted automobile sales agency business from October 21, 2014 and added an insurance agency business as its intended business."

9쪽 글상자 속 7줄의 " OO자동차 OOO대리점(OOO)" 부분을 " OO자동차 @@@대대리점(@@@)"으로 고친다.

11. The phrase “the Defendant’s audit” of the 11st line is regarded as “du*car’s audit.”

11쪽 4줄 다음에 "원고와 자동차 구매계약을 체결한 각 판매대리점의 직원인 $$$, @@@도 AA의 감사인 BB가 중개를 하여 계약을 체결하였다고 하면서도 구체적으로 AA가 어떤 역할을 하였는지에 대해서는 설명하지 못하고 있으며, 단지 원고의 대표이사로서 지속적으로 거래를 해온 BB와의 신뢰관계를 고려하여 AA에 판매장려금을 지급하였다는 취지로 회신하고 있을 뿐이다."를 추가한다.

11. "Provision of vehicle information" of 7 lines under the bottom of the 11st is called "Provision of vehicle purchase information by the plaintiff".

11 The part "not A" of two lines below the bottom shall be read as "not as an auditor of the A".

13 It appears that the appearance of the 12 line "which appears to have been formed such as the receipt of a dispute gold source" appears to be "the appearance of the 13 line, such as the receipt of the dispute amount, seems to have been formed".

3. Conclusion

Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is groundless.