early trial 2009Gu2324 (209.03)
Since the evidence documents related to the collection and sale of solid goods are not presented, it is difficult to see that the applicant corporation had a separate personal business entity from the applicant corporation.
Article 15 of the Corporate Tax Act / [Scope of Gross Income] / 【Scope of Losses】
The early 2018 middle 3521
The appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of disposition;
A. Since the commencement of the business on January 1, 2002 from OO, the applicant corporation reported and paid corporate tax for the pertinent business year as a corporation that manufactures and sells OO.
B. As a result of the tax investigation into the applicant corporation, the disposition agency confirmed that the amount equivalent to KRW 414,702,514 of the consideration for supply deposited by the representative director KimO or Lee OOO was the sales of the applicant corporation, and confirmed that it was omitted to make a report and omitted value-added tax of KRW 82,660,610 ( KRW 8,64,860, KRW 18,887,410, KRW 18,87,410, KRW 205, KRW 1,735, KRW 340, KRW 206, KRW 191, KRW 370, KRW 370, KRW 2006, KRW 207, KRW 18,887, KRW 410, KRW 205, KRW 207, KRW 206, KRW 206, KRW 370, KRW 370, KRW 2006, KRW 164, KRW 16465, KRW 276465, KRW 2067
C. The applicant filed an appeal on May 29, 2009.
2. Opinion of the requesting corporation and the disposition agency;
A. The claimant corporation's assertion
(1) The representative director of the requesting corporation has collected and sold high water by using the land owned by the OO as the place of business, and the OO has requested that the OO collect and sell high water from the OO while operating the OO (hereinafter “the other requesting corporation”) exporting the OO, and the OO collected high water from the OO and sold it to the OOO. During this process, the POO collected high water in its personal qualification and sold it to the POO. Since OO demanded 100 million won from the KimO to collect high water, the OO transferred 100 million won to the OO's key account of the OOO, and the OO had issued the receipt of the deposit, and the amount corresponding to the purchase of high water sold to the OO was not verified with the funds of the corporation, but it was improper to request 3050,5050 won or less deposited from the 3000 won account of the corporation.
(2) On August 29, 2001, 200, EOO requested the wife of EOO to pay 60,567,000 won of the credit purchase amount of EOO on August 29, 200, EOO transferred the amount on behalf of the EOOO on April 26, 2004 through August 10, 2004, the EOO returned 33,58,014 won (hereinafter referred to as “Dispute B”), which is a part of the O over four occasions from April 26, 2004 to August 10, 2004, the EO was in violation of the principle of taxation based on the ground that the EOO is the representative director of the EO, and thus, it should be revoked.
(b) Opinions of disposition agencies;
(1) A non-party corporation represented by Kim OO has continuously purchased OO, which is a product manufactured by the requesting corporation, as the sales place of the requesting corporation, and it has not registered its business under high-water commercial transactions; although it sold high-water products unrelated to the products of the requesting corporation, there was no evidence from the initial tax investigation, and there was no evidence of the sales-related sales-related documents, and since there was no evidence of the purchase of high-water from KimOO, the issue amount transferred from the requesting corporation should be the sales price for the non-data sales of the requesting corporation. In addition, the requesting corporation suggested the receipt of deposit and the confirmation of KimOO's sales-related sales prepared by the requesting corporation by asserting that 10 million won out of the issue amount deposited by KimOOO is 10,000,000,000,000 won out of the first tax investigation, and there was no evidence of financial evidence, and so if the requesting corporation demanded the payment of the deposit on condition of high-priced purchase, it is legitimate to do so for the reasons for returning the deposit and the small-type of 20.
(2) On Aug. 29, 2001, the claimant corporation had paid 60,567,000 won on credit purchase amount of OO that is the representative of OO in lieu of payment on credit purchase amount of 60,567,000 won, and the claimant corporation has submitted the OO's confirmation document that transferred 2 amount to the OO's major account during the period from April 26, 2004 to August 10, 2004. However, the claimant corporation's representative is the OO's representative and the OO's sales place (2, 1,345,000 won on loan payment amount of 1 won in 204, 2004, 204, 1,345,000 won on loan payment amount of OO's sales place, and the respondent corporation failed to present objective evidence other than this verification document, so this disposition is justified as a claim for the sales of the corporation.
3. Hearing and determination
A. Key issue
propriety of the disposition imposing tax on the applicant corporation by deeming the amount deposited in the issue account under the name of the representative director of the applicant corporation as the omission of the sales of the applicant corporation
(b) Related statutes;
(1) 【Scope of Gross Income” under Article 15 of the Corporate Tax Act refers to the amount of profits generated by transactions which increase the net assets of the corporation, except as provided in this Act, such as capital or financing and other transactions.
Article 19 (Scope of Losses) (1) of the Corporate Tax Act shall be the amount of losses incurred by transactions which reduce the net assets of the corporation except for the refund of capital or financing, disposal of surplus funds, and those provided for in this Act.
(2) The losses under the provisions of paragraph (1) shall be losses or expenses generated or spent in connection with the business of a corporation which are generally accepted as normal or directly related to profit, except as otherwise prescribed by this Act and other Acts and subordinate statutes.
(2) In any of the following cases, the head of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment or the head of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment shall correct the tax base and amount of corporate tax on the income of the relevant corporation for each business year:
1. Where there are errors or omissions in the contents of the report;
(3) Where the head of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment or the Commissioner of the competent Regional Tax Office determines or revises the tax base and amount of corporate tax pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2), he shall make it based on the account books and other documentary evidence: Provided, That where it is impossible to calculate the amount of income by the account books
C. Facts and determination
(1) According to the review data, such as a statement of investigation, correction resolution, etc. presented by the disposition agency, in the tax investigation of the applicant corporation, the following fact was verified that the amount deposited by the representative director KimO or LeeOOO was 414,702,514 won in the sales of the applicant corporation, such as the amount deposited by the representative director KimOO or LeeOOOO as the amount of 314,702,514 won in the tax investigation of the applicant corporation, and this case-value-added tax
In January 2009, the confirmation letter of fact by the representative of the requesting corporation at the time of the tax investigation, 2009, 1. I confirm that the amount deposited and withdrawn by the nameOOOO in the red column among the transactions with the applicant corporation's account is not a monetary loan transaction, but a transaction for the sale of goods and purchase of goods. 2. 2. KimOOOO's deposit amount includes the sale of goods, purchase transaction, and loan transaction, but it is not possible to accurately discard and distinguish the documents prepared at the time. According to the electronic data of the National Tax Service, the authorizedOO's business registration is registered and the value-added tax is not reported. According to the computerized data of the National Tax Service, the non-applicant corporation that is the representative of the KimOOOO was purchased the electric saving machine, which is the product produced by the requesting corporation as the sales of the requesting corporation (the first half of 203, the first half of 2004, the second half of 1.23 million won in 2005).
(2) The representative director of the requesting corporation has collected and sold solid (TV monitors, disposal plates, etc.) that is unrelated to the electricity saving or by-products produced by the requesting corporation while using land outside of e-OO as a high-water storage. Since KimO operated an off-demand corporation that exports high water to OO, it is demanded that OO collect and sell high water from OO while collecting and selling high water at individual qualification, OOO may demand 10 million won from OOO while collecting and selling high water, it is apprehended that OO would be short of funds and that OO would not purchase high water after collection, and that OO would be in violation of the principle of 200 million won from OO's purchase and sale. Accordingly, it is confirmed that OO's purchase and sale should be deducted from 200,000,000,000 won from 20,000,000,000 won from OO's account.
(A) The details of deposits made by the representative of the applicant extra-corporate entity, Kim OOO, and KOOOOO into the key account are as shown below 16 1.
(B) On April 26, 2004, in light of the register of register of 365m2 of the site 658-8m2, EOO (the wife of EOO) acquired all shares over three times from December 30, 2003 to May 24, 2004 and transferred all shares on May 26, 2005. The confirmation document prepared by EOOOOO on May 26, 2009, "I will operate OOO which exports other than TV and monitors to OO, with the knowledge that OO was engaged in the previous water business, I will request OO's 203-200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000.
(C) In full view of the above contents, it is difficult to see that the KOO has a personal entrepreneur who has continuously purchased the electric saving shop, which is the product of the requesting corporation, in view of the fact that the KOO had registered the business in high water commercial, and that there was no report on the value-added tax, etc. thereon, and that the KOO collected and sold high water irrelevant to the product of the requesting corporation, although it did not present the evidence related to the collection and sale of high water, it is difficult to see that the KOO had a personal entrepreneur who has a separate from the requesting corporation.
In addition, the claimant corporation suggested that 100 million won of the issue ① amount deposited by KimOO is the security deposit, but the documents are not reliable because it does not present objective financial evidence following the return of the security deposit on August 21, 2006, and the total assets of the non-claim corporation in 2004 are merely 157 million won, and the amount of the transaction with the claimant corporation in 2004 is reported to be non-existent and 23 million won, and it is difficult for KimOO to view that 100 million won has been paid to the claim corporation.
(3) Next, the claimant corporation filed a claim on August 29, 2001, with the lack of business funds due to the division of the MOO, and upon the request of the (ju) OO's purchaser at the purchase price of the OO on August 29, 2001, it was transferred on behalf of the claimant corporation on four occasions from April 26, 2004 to August 10, 2004, and the (33,58,014 won, which was partially returned to the claim corporation's sales, was improper to conclude that the amount was remitted to the claim corporation's sales, and it was presented to the (ju)O's copy of the head of Tong, copy of the request for deposit, copy of the certificate of deposit, copy of the confirmation of deposit, and the fact of this atmosphere (5 May 2009).
(A) The details of entry into the key account from this atmosphere appear to be KRW 3,58,014, 5,148,014, May 10, 2004, KRW 8,440,000, KRW 8,440,000, and KRW 10,000, and KRW 33,588,014,000, which are the aggregate of KRW 8,440,000, and KRW 10,000 on August 10, 2004. The Claimant was returned to the key amount, and the Claimant was still unable to receive the refund of KRW 26,978,986, but did not prepare the loan certificate with relatives.
(B) From the OO under the name of OO on August 29, 2001, the details of the withdrawal in cash have been shown, and the claimant's subdivision of OO, the representative, appears to have been withdrawn in KRW 60,567,00 on August 29, 2001. On the certificate of deposit request, 60,55,000 in cash, and on August 29, 2001, the certificate of deposit request was presented to the OO on August 29, 2001.
(C) The confirmation document drawn up by this atmosphere in May 2009 is as follows: (a) although the principal operates OO as a type of chain with the MOO, it is not sufficient to request the settlement of the purchase price of KRW 60,567,00,00 from August 29, 2001, when the business was under financial pressure due to its poor operation; and (b) it is confirmed that the person requested the settlement of the purchase price of KRW 60,567,00 from April to August 2004, the said amount was not immediately repaid, but was remitted to KRW 33,558,00 from April to August 2004, which was not yet repaid.
(D) In full view of the above contents, the claimant corporation asserted that it was paid 60,567,000 won of the credit purchase amount on August 29, 2001, when it operated the OOO of the private business chain, and that it was paid 60,567,000 won on the other three occasions on April 26, 2004, but it is unclear whether the deposited money was paid OO on August 29, 2001, it is possible to prepare the certificate of this atmosphere, and there is no credibility because it is possible to prepare it. Some of it was paid on August 29, 2004, and it is not reasonable that OO was not paid until now, and it is difficult to accept the claim for the above evidential document alone, presented by the claimant corporation, to exclude the amount from the amount of the report omitted.
This case shall be decided as ordered in accordance with Articles 81 and 65 (1)2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes on the grounds that the petition is groundless as a result of the review.