The early high-2015-China 438

Non-Inclusion of the lease deposit fee which is falsely excessive in excess of deductible expenses is legitimate.

It is legitimate that the lease fee required for a false and excessive machine is excluded from deductible expenses.

Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes Article 67 of the Enforcement Decree of Income Disposition Act

Incheon District Court-2015-Gu Partnership-51709

○○ Technology Corporation

The director of the Southern Incheon District Office

December 3, 2015

January 14, 2016

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 KRW 1,093,30 of corporate tax for the business year 201 against the Plaintiff on April 8, 2014, and the imposition of KRW 125,542,50 of the earned income tax for the year 201 against the Plaintiff on October 16, 2014, respectively, shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff reported that the Plaintiff acquired three mechanical devices from Korea’s integrated machines in KRW 827,761,888 through financial lease at the time of filing a corporate tax return in 2011.

B. Around February 2013, the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to vindicate whether the above machinery was acquired.

The plaintiff, even if there was no actual transaction, is a disguised purchase of the above machinery from the lessee.

564,400,000 won was loaned.

C. The Plaintiff did not deposit 564,400,000 won of the above loan in the Plaintiff’s corporate account and deposited it in the Plaintiff’s representative Kim ○○’s personal account. Among them, the Plaintiff accounts for 393,400,000 won excluding 171,00,000,000 won actually used for the Plaintiff’s use of used used machines as the Plaintiff’s representative Kim ○ as the provisional payment for the Plaintiff’s representative Kim ○, and filed a revised corporate tax for the business year in 2011 and the business year in 2012 by adding the interest rate for the key amount to the income.

D. The Defendant deposited at the Plaintiff’s representative account on April 8, 2014 to the Plaintiff’s representative account.

The Plaintiff was disposed of as bonus and imposed corporate tax of KRW 1,093,300 in the business year 201 on the Plaintiff. On October 16, 2014, the tax imposed KRW 125,542,500 on the earned income tax withheld for the year 2014 (hereinafter “each disposition of this case”).

1) Of the lease deposit fees, the amount of KRW 15,60,000 corresponding to the machinery and equipment, which was excessively appropriated, was excluded from deductible expenses; instead, the amount of KRW 7,664,065 as to the provisional payment by the Plaintiff’s representative, was excluded from deductible expenses; and the amount of KRW 4,650,301 as to the difference of KRW 3,285,634 as to the difference of KRW 3,285,634 was added to deductible expenses.

E. On November 21, 2014, the Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with each of the instant dispositions, requested an inquiry to the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on March 9, 2015.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

295,000,000 won out of the issues deposited into the representative account of the Plaintiff’s representative account

It was used for corporate business, such as purchase of raw materials, and the remainder of 98,400,000 won was used for the purpose of debt repayment, expenses, etc. of the corporate entity. Therefore, the key amount was actually reverted to the corporate entity, so the instant disposition was unlawful against the principle of substantial taxation.

(b) Related statutes;

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

The number of representatives after the fact that the funds have been leaked from a corporation to the representative;

Even if the other party's cash account was opened in the gold account to enter the account, if the representative's short-term loan account was opened from the representative's short-term transaction, and it is anticipated that the account should be set up against the representative's second-term transaction, barring special circumstances such as the nominal processing obligation not set up for the first half of the deposit amount, it cannot be deemed that the funds already leaked to the representative's own account and reverted to the representative's 200 billion won were recovered as the corporation. (See Supreme Court Decision 200Du3726, Jan. 11, 2002.) According to the legal principles set forth in No. 4-9 (including the serial number) and No. 2-100,000 won, the total amount of KRW 200,000,000 won was set out from the account set forth in No. 2-1050,000 won.

Therefore, the above KRW 295,00,000, which was reverted to Kim ○○, cannot be deemed to have been recovered as the Plaintiff’s corporation. Moreover, it is insufficient to recognize that KRW 98,400,000 out of the key amount belongs to the Plaintiff and was used for the Plaintiff’s corporation, solely on the basis of each of the certificates (including each number) Nos. 11 and 12 (including each number) are insufficient. Therefore, the Defendant did not err in disposing of the key amount as the bonus to the Plaintiff’s representative, and the Plaintiff’s assertion disputing this is

Meanwhile, in the disposition of this case, the Plaintiff did not assert an obvious illegal cause with respect to the disposition of this case. Among the grounds for the disposition, the contents unfavorable to the Plaintiff were excluded from deductible expenses the lease deposit fee spent for the mechanical device with a false excessive appropriation. Since it is apparent that the fee is deductible expenses without business relevance, the Defendant did not err in the disposition of this part.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is without merit, and it is dismissed and it is so decided as per Disposition.

(c)