logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2015.12.10 2015구합60310
세무사직무정지처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff completed the registration of a certified tax accountant on January 19, 2005 and operates a tax business.

B. The Plaintiff: (a) on behalf of C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) conducting oil sales business, etc., prepared a book for reporting corporate tax for the year 201 to 2013; (b) received oil purchase certificate prepared by C as evidentiary documents for oil purchase cost and bank passbook in which the details of cash withdrawal were recorded; and (c) appropriated C’s oil purchase cost KRW 2.7 billion for expenses on the basis of such receipt.

C. The Busan Regional Tax Office conducted a tax investigation with respect to C, and even though there was no evidentiary document when C filed a return of the corporate tax for the year 201 to 2013, it omitted corporate tax of KRW 500 million by appropriating the purchase cost of oil as expenses and additionally collected the tax evasion amount.

On March 30, 2015, the Defendant held a meeting of the Certified Tax Accountants Disciplinary Committee to effect that “the Plaintiff violated Article 12 of the Certified Tax Accountant Act by appropriating expenses without evidentiary documents when the Plaintiff prepares books on behalf of the Plaintiff for filing a corporate tax return for the year 2011 or 2013 from 2011 to 2013.”

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry in Gap’s evidence or 10(including branch numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1C purchased oil from a person who did not register as a business operator and could not receive the evidentiary documents listed in each subparagraph of Article 116(2) of the Corporate Tax Act from the oil seller.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff submitted the oil purchase paper prepared in C with the evidentiary document on the oil purchase cost and the bank passbook in which the details of cash withdrawal were recorded, and the oil purchase statement stated in the above oil purchase statement and the cash withdrawal statement recorded in the above bank passbook were consistent.

Therefore, the oil purchase cost and the bank passbook shall be C's oil purchase cost.

arrow