Governing Judge 25 of the Board of Audit and Inspection of 2014 (No. 06, 2014)

The taxpayer bears the burden of proving that the omitted amount of sales has been deposited in the borrowed account and that the omitted amount is not the amount of sales.

Unless a taxpayer proves that an amount of money deposited into a borrowed account of the Plaintiff is presumed to be the Plaintiff’s sales, barring any special circumstance, and that the amount deposited in the borrowed account is not the sales revenue attributed to the pertinent business year, the taxation imposed on the account of gross income for the pertinent business year is legitimate.

Article 15 of the Corporate Tax Act: Scope of Gross Income

2014Guhap580444 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing corporate tax, etc.

】 Stock company 】

○ Head of tax office

on December 22, 2014

October 10, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of corporate tax on January 4, 2010 by OOO(including additional tax) and OO(including additional tax) for the business year 2006, and the income earner(s) for the business year 2007, and the income earner(s) are revoked in all notice of change in income amount made to OO(s).

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a legal entity that operates a foreign language private teaching institute at ○○○○○○○○-dong ○○○○○○○○○○.

나. △△지방국세청장은 2009. 9. 25.부터 2009. 11. 6.까지 원고에 대한 법인세 통합조사를 실시한 결과, 원고가 아래 <표> 기재와 같이 2006 사업연도에 ◎◎점, ◇◇점,◆◆점의 3개 지점에서 대표자인 조☆☆ 명의의 3개 계좌로 입금받은 수강료 OOO원 중 OOO원을 2006 사업연도 법인세 신고시 수입금액에서 누락한 것으로 보아, 2009. 12.경 피고에게 이를 익금산입하고 조☆☆에 대한 상여로 소득처분하여 법인세 등을 부과하도록 통보하였다.

Places of business

Bank and Account Number

Amount of entrance fees (won)

Macknum Points

〃029-29- 】 】 】 】-- 】

OO

개지지지

▼▼은행 352-××-××

OO

◆◆점

▼▼은행 81××-××-1××

OO

Total

OO

C. Accordingly, on January 4, 2010, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the correction and notification of the OOO(including additional taxes) and the OO(the tax amount following the adjustment of the deduction amount of losses carried forward) of the corporate tax for the business year 2006 and the OO(the tax amount following the adjustment of the deduction amount of losses carried forward). On the other hand, the Defendant disposed of the OO as a bonus from the △△△, and notified of the change in the amount of income (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “disposition”).

D. On March 22, 2010, the Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for review with the Chairman of the Board of Audit and Inspection on March 22, 2010, but was dismissed on February 6, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 2, 6, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Defendant’s three accounts in the name of the Do governor in charge of the payment of tuition fees (hereinafter “instant account”) in the name of the Plaintiff

D) After assuming that the account is an account to conceal a borrowed-name account or income, the Plaintiff reported the amount of tuition fees received from the instant account as the income amount, taking into account the following circumstances: (a) where the person who deposited tuition fees and the person who received cash receipts from the account of this case is the same person or a member of the same household, even if cash receipts were not issued, the Plaintiff determined the remainder other than the case where the tuition fees were paid in cash in the cash receipt book as the corporate tax omission amount; (b) however, there is a possibility that the Plaintiff may differ between the person who deposited the tuition fees and the person who received cash receipts from the account of this case; (c) if the Plaintiff intended to escape from the account by omitting the revenue amount, the Plaintiff was paid the tuition fees in cash to not keep the financial data; and (c) the Plaintiff’s use of the account other than the business account was not for concealing the income, but for business convenience. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the instant disposition was unlawful on a different premise.

(b) Fact of recognition;

1) The Plaintiff reported the amount of income, such as tuition fees, as OO won at the time of filing corporate tax returns for the business year 2006.

2) The Plaintiff received tuition fees, etc. from an account in the name of a corporation, or from the account in this case or from a private teaching institute by credit card settlement, or received in cash at a private teaching institute in the business year 2006, or received by credit card settlement is as follows:

Classification

Amount of revenue (won)

Sales of credit cards

OO

Account in the name of a corporation

OO

The Account of this case

OO

Total

OO

3) The Plaintiff’s tuition fees deposited in the instant account, tuition fees, etc. received in cash from a private teaching institute, etc. shall be entered in the cash receipt and disbursement account, and tuition fees, etc. received in the corporate name in the ordinary deposit account. The details are as listed below.

(units: 1,00 won

National Tax Service

Cash Receipts

System

Cash Receipts and Disbursements

Ordinary deposits (corporate accounts)

Cash Receipts

Issued Shares

Cash Receipts

Unissued issued portion

Total

Cash Receipts

Issued Shares

Cash Receipts

Unissued issued portion

Total

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

4) The amount of revenue from the tuition fees deposited into the instant account in 2006 of the Central Regional Tax Office

신고 누락액을 확정하기 위하여, 먼저 국세청 현금영수증 시스템을 통해 2006 사업연도에 ◎◎점, ◇◇점, ◆◆점에서 현금영수증을 수취한 자 및 그와 동일한 세대원의 명단(OOO원)과 2006 사업연도에 이 사건 계좌로 금원을 입금한 자의 명단(OOO원)을 각 구축한 후 서로 일치하는 경우(OOO원)는 수입금액을 신고한 것으로 보고, 그렇지 않은 경우(OOO원 = OOO원 - OOO원)는 일단 수입금액 신고를 누락한 혐의가 있는 것으로 판단하되, 원고에게 수강생의 세대원이 아닌 자가 현금영수증을 발급받은 경우가 있는지를 소명하도록 요구하였으며(원고는 소명자료를 제출하지 않았다), 현금출납장계정의 현금영수증 미발행분 OOO원을 현금매출로서 수입금액 신고를 한 것으로 보아 최종적으로 OOO원(= OOO원 - OOO원)을 수입금액 신고 누락액으로 확정하였다.

5) The body of the regional tax office’s failure to report the revenue amount found through the above process

The particulars are as follows:

Places of business

Deposit Account

Account Deposit Amount

Amount verified to issue Cash Receipts

The amount suspected of omitting a report;

The reporter's sperm

Amount omitted in filing a report

Macknum Points

▽▽△ Bank

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

개지지지

▼▼은행

OO

OO

OO

◆◆점

▼▼은행

OO

OO

OO

Total

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

6) Details of the confirmation document prepared on October 27, 2009 by the △△△△△, who had worked as a person in charge of the Plaintiff’s accounting.

The following shall be:

○ The list of students receiving tuition fees and teaching materials stated in cash in the statement of the revenue amount on the account books shall be the cash receipt from the bank account and from the private teaching institute as presented by the private teaching institute. However, the details of cash receipt as of the date of confirmation and the details of deposit into the bank account shall not be known.

The entry into the account book refers to the recipient of cash receipts from the National Tax Service, and the actual cash and the bank account presented by the private teaching institute was issued to the recipient of cash receipts. However, there was a record of whether the private teaching institute intended to issue cash receipts to any student from among the students deposited into the bank account. However, there is no list of parents, and there is no ambassador between the details of deposits in the account book and the details of issuance of cash receipts. It is difficult to say that pure cash receipts are deposited into the borrowed account by cash processing and the cash deposited into the borrowed account is not separated.

Although ○n-hee company manages the private teaching institute management system, such as the list of students and the payment details of tuition fees, a considerable part of the data is deleted in the course of operating the data, and the current list of students during the investigation period and the details of tuition fees are not verified electronically in the private teaching institute management system.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 2, 3, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

C. Determination

The following facts and the purport of the entire arguments can be considered as a whole:

The above circumstances, namely, ① the amount reported by the Plaintiff as the revenue amount of the business year 2006 is an OO, and the sum of the tuition fees paid by the Plaintiff through credit card settlement in the business year 2006 or deposited into the account and the account in this case is more than the reported revenue, even if the Plaintiff excluded OO personnel from the tuition fees paid in cash in the private teaching institute, so it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff reported the entire tuition fees paid to the instant account as the revenue amount.

② In the process of confirming the omitted amount of the Plaintiff’s revenue return, the Defendant recognized that the cash receipt was reported as the revenue amount when it was issued even though it was difficult to conclude that the cash receipt was reported as the revenue amount, and recognized that the cash revenue was also reported as the revenue amount. ③ The Plaintiff did not submit the data even if the Plaintiff was required to explain whether a person, other than the members of the Plaintiff, was issued the cash receipt in the process of the tax investigation, and there is a possibility that the name of the person who deposited the tuition fees with the instant account and the person who received the cash receipt would differ even in the instant lawsuit. Accordingly, in light of the following, the Defendant’s assertion to the effect that when the cash receipt was issued to the instant account, it should be deemed that the person who received the cash receipt should be reported as the revenue amount without relation to the student, and that the Defendant calculated the Plaintiff’s income return amount through the aforementioned process and did not submit any data. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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