The amount to be included in necessary expenses shall be the total amount of expenses corresponding to the total amount of income in the relevant taxable period, which is generally accepted.

It is difficult to readily understand that evidence to see that the purchase of fright and milch cows is insufficient, and that 95% or more of the sale is spent at the expense, and it is difficult to understand that the Plaintiff purchased fright and milch cows through III and paid the purchase price, and the other party to the transfer submitted by the Plaintiff failed to explain at all on the details indicated outside III, and therefore, the issue amount of this case cannot

Article 27 (Calculation of Necessary Expenses)

2013Guhap58498 Global Income and Revocation of Disposition

AA

BB Director of the Tax Office

December 6, 2013

January 17, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

On November 6, 2012, the Defendant revoked the disposition of imposition of the global income tax OOO for the Plaintiff on November 6, 2012.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From December 29, 2009, the Plaintiff (the former name before name: the formerCC) runs the retail business of meat with the trade name "DDD" in OOO-dong OO-O(hereinafter referred to as the "instant business establishment") from around December 29, 2009, and runs the wholesale retail business of meat with the trade name "EE" from around May 1, 2009 to June 23, 201.

B. When the Plaintiff reported the global income tax base for the year 2010 by means of a simplified book, the Plaintiff reported the total amount of revenue in the instant workplace as OOwon, necessary expenses, and the amount of income as OOwon.

C. As a result of conducting a tax investigation on the instant place of business, the Defendant denied the OO of the necessary expenses reported by the Plaintiff on the ground of the lack of evidence, and on November 6, 2012, notified the Plaintiff of the rectification and notification of the OO of the global income tax for the global income tax for the year 2010.

D. 1) On December 13, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office, asserting that the total sum of the salaries paid to the head of OOO (hereinafter “instant key amount”) of the meat and milch cows sold after the Plaintiff purchased from mountainous districts and slaughtered from FFF (hereinafter “FFF”), and the wages paid to the head of OOO (hereinafter “the instant key amount”), SongG, and new H, should be deducted from the necessary expenses.

2) On January 8, 2013, the head of the Seoul Regional Tax Office rendered a decision on the imposition of global income tax for 2010 years against the Plaintiff on November 6, 2012, the head of the Seoul Regional Tax Office: (a) recognized the Plaintiff as the necessary expense and corrected the tax base and tax amount by deeming the Plaintiff as having omitted fees for slaughter as the necessary expense; (b) re-examines whether SongG and New H actually worked at the Plaintiff’s workplace during the taxable year 2010, and determined that the remainder of the application is dismissed.

3) Accordingly, the Defendant: (a) recognized the OOO of the slaughter fee as the necessary expense and corrected the global income tax for 2010 as the KRW OO of the slaughter fee; (b) re-audited the OO of the wages paid to SongG and New HH as the necessary expense; and (c) subsequently, revised the global income tax for 2010 as the KRW OO of the global income tax for 2010 for which the reduction was corrected (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

E. On April 11, 2013, the Plaintiff appealed with respect to the key amount of the instant case, and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on April 11, 2013, but was dismissed on June 19, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 11, 12 (including additional numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Quality Evaluation Institute of Livestock Products is a public institution that evaluates the quality of domestic livestock products in accordance with scientific standards and performs the duties of promoting the production of high-quality livestock products, such as high-quality livestock products, such as cattle, pigs, and chickens, and managing all stages from production to consumption. According to the "Quality Evaluation Institute of Livestock Products (Evidence 4)" and "Control System of 쇠s (Evidence 5)" (Evidence 5) of the Quality Evaluation Institute of Livestock Products in the instant workplace, it is confirmed that the Plaintiff slaughtered OOOO pists and milbs in total from March 8, 2010 to December 27, 2010; the Plaintiff's OO pists and milbs were slaughtered in the market; the Plaintiff's OO pists and milbs were also operated in the brokerage market; the price of the instant livestock products purchased through the former II was determined based on the average market price of the instant products; and the price of the instant products at issue was determined as necessary expenses.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) 원고가 제출한 축산물 품질평가원의 2010. 1. 1.부터 2010. 12. 31.까지의 '소도체 등급판정결과'(갑 제3호증)에는 도축 작업장(FFFF), 도축 일자(2010. 3. 8. ~2010. 12. 27.), 등급 판정일자(2010. 3. 8. ~ 2010. 12. 28.), 육량{등지방 두께(㎜), 등심 연적(㎠), 도체중(㎏), 육량지수, 육량등급 등}, 육질(근내지방, 육색, 지방색, 조직감, 성숙도, 육질등급), 최종등급, 경락단가, 바코드 등이 기재되어 있다. 또한, '쇠고기 이력시스템'(갑 제5호증)에는 소 출생 등 신고정보(소유주, 신고일자, 사육지 등), 도축 및 가공정보(도축장, 도축일자, 도축검사결과, 육질등급 등), 구제역 백신접종 및 브루셀라병 검사정보(구제역 예방접종 최종일자, 브루셀라 검사 최종일자, 브루셀라 검사결과)가 기재되어 있다.

2) On April 10, 2013, the former II prepared and issued to the Plaintiff a written confirmation of the following contents.

○ From July 2007, 2007, IO is operating refined land sales business in OO as well as OO.

○ ○ was aware that the market price was well known to reduce the number of parts of the domestic beef with the relation to the operation of the fixed meat store for a period of six years, and thus, when the meat wholesale store operated by the Plaintiff needs the meat at the meat wholesale store, the Plaintiff was able to purchase and slaughter the domestic beef through the high market in Gyeonggi-do, such as harmony, flat, fry, domin, and Leecheon-do, upon the Plaintiff’s request, and the small amount was purchased from the Plaintiff by directly receiving the deposit of the account without the passbook and cash.

○ At the time of 2010, the Plaintiff had no experience in purchasing domestic beef from the FF due to his own direct purchase from March 2010 to December 2010.

3) The key amount of the instant case claimed by the Plaintiff as necessary expenses and the amount claimed by J bank account (Account Number:O-O-O-O) and K K account (Account Number:O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O) in the name of the Plaintiff is as follows.

4) When the Plaintiff reported the global income tax base for the year 2010 by means of a simple book book, the Plaintiff reported the total amount of revenue of “EE” as OO won, necessary expenses as OO won, and the amount of income as OO won.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 10, Eul evidence No. 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) Article 27(1) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10408, Dec. 27, 2010) provides that the amount to be included in necessary expenses when calculating business income shall be the total amount of expenses corresponding to the total amount of income in the pertinent taxable period that is generally accepted. Article 55(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides for the purchase price (excluding purchase discount and purchase discount) of raw materials for goods or products sold as one of the necessary expenses corresponding to the total amount of income in each taxable period of business income and the expenses incidental thereto.

2) In light of the following circumstances, the instant disposition, which the Defendant did not recognize the instant issue amount as necessary expenses, is lawful, and the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

① Inasmuch as the Plaintiff asserted that he purchased Obs and mil cowss in mountainous districts through the former II and submitted as evidence, the 'the result of grading (Evidence A 4) and the 'the history system' (Evidence A 5) include only information on slaughter, such as the date of slaughter and determination, and the rating of cattle slaughtered, it is insufficient to serve as evidence to prove that the Plaintiff purchased Obs and mil cowss in mountainous districts.

② The Plaintiff asserts that the pertinent issue amount based on the successful bid price should be recognized as necessary expenses, as it is ordinarily lower than the actual transaction price. However, among the successful bid price for which the Plaintiff asserts that it should be recognized as necessary expenses, part of the bid price is lower than the transaction price claimed by the Plaintiff while purchasing and paying the land and milch cows through the former II (the number Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 14, 16, 19, 20, 23, 24).

③ At the time of 2010, the Plaintiff operated a wholesale retail business with the trade name “EE” in OO-OO-dong O-OE, as well as the instant place of business. Therefore, it is difficult to readily conclude that the instant issue amount was necessary expenses corresponding to the sales in the instant place of business.

④ If the key amount of the instant case is recognized as necessary expenses, the Plaintiff: (a) obtained the revenue of the total amount of KRW OE in 2010 (i.e., the total amount of revenue of the instant business establishment + the total amount of KRW OEE); (b) however, it is difficult to readily obtain that the Plaintiff paid the necessary expenses for the instant business establishment: (c) the necessary expenses OOwon reported by the Plaintiff (i.e., the necessary expenses - the necessary expenses - OOOwon denied with the lack of evidence + the amount of KRW OOOwon for the omission of slaughter fees + the necessary expenses ＋ the instant amount of KRW OE) + the necessary expenses 'EEEE” (the amount of revenue of the instant business establishment).

⑤ The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff purchased fry and milch cows in mountainous districts through the former II, and the former II purchased a lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiff upon the request of the Plaintiff and stated that the payment was paid in cash after purchasing the fy and milch cows through the former II. However, the Plaintiff’s account in the Plaintiff’s J Bank and KK account as evidence of asserting that the purchase of the fy and milch cows through the former II and the payment was made in cash is indicated by KimL, Song GG, teaM, MN, OOO, pyP, and HaH except the former II. Accordingly, the Plaintiff did not fully explain how the fy and milch were transferred to them.

3. Conclusion

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

shall be ruled.