Seocho 2012west 1554 (Law No. 13, 2012)

In the case of extra expenses omitted at the initial return, the taxpayer must prove that the omission is to be made.

Unless there are special circumstances, such as where the amount of income omitted from the initial return was revealed by the account book that the corresponding extra expense was separately paid, it shall be deemed that the total amount of income was already included in the deductible expenses corresponding to the total amount of income, and for the extra expense corresponding to the omission, the taxpayer shall prove the omission.

2012Guhap30387 Revocation of Disposition of Corporate Tax Imposition

AAAA Research Institute Co., Ltd.

head of Dongjak-gu Tax Office

April 5, 2013

May 24, 2013

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

On July 1, 2011, the Defendant revoked each disposition of KRW 000 of the corporate tax in 2006 and KRW 0000 of the corporate tax in 2009 and KRW 000 of the corporate tax in 2010.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company that operates a private teaching institute, etc. that prepares for a public official test in the Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government OO and Jongno-gu OO, and the Suwon-gu OO.

B. From March 9, 2011 to May 2, 2011, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office conducted a tax investigation with respect to the Plaintiff, and then notified the Defendant of the above fact by determining that “the Plaintiff was omitted from the cash income amount of 000 won (the income amount of 2007, the income amount of 0000, the income amount of 2008, and the income amount of 2009, the income amount of 2009), and the response amount of 000 won (the response amount of 2007, the response amount of 000 won, and the response amount of 2009, and the response amount of 000 won).”

C. Accordingly, on July 1, 201, the Defendant included the omitted income in gross income and included the omitted response costs in deductible expenses, and decided and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 000 in corporate tax in 2006, KRW 000 in additional tax in 2007, KRW 000 in additional tax in 2008, and KRW 000 in corporate tax in 2009 (including additional tax 000) and KRW 000 in corporate tax in 2010 (including additional tax 0000).

D. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an objection on September 28, 201, but the said application on November 9, 201

On February 14, 2012, the Tax Tribunal requested an inquiry, but the claim was dismissed on June 13, 2012.

E. On July 1, 2011, the Defendant revoked ex officio the disposition imposing corporate tax on July 1, 201, and issued a new stock.

[Based on Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply), and Eul evidence 7 in Eul, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

From 2007 to 2009, the Plaintiff spent 000 won in total as advertising expenses, welfare expenses, facility installation expenses, entertainment expenses, and transportation expenses as follows, and refunded 000 won in total to the students who revoked the application for taking lectures. Therefore, the above 000 won should be included in deductible expenses and the above 000 won should be included in gross income.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

Unless special circumstances exist, such as where the tax authority finds any income omitted in the initial return of the corporation through a field investigation by determining the tax base and tax amount of the corporation’s income, it shall be deemed that the corresponding purchase cost was separately paid for deductible expenses, such as the corresponding purchase cost, were already included in the total deductible expenses corresponding to the total income. In such a case, if a taxpayer who seeks to include the expenses in deductible expenses is found to have omitted the report on the expenses corresponding to the omission income and wants to obtain the deduction, he/she shall assert and prove the omission by himself/herself (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2673, Nov. 27, 2003).

(i) Advertisement expenses;

According to the statement in evidence No. 3, it is recognized that the sum total of KRW 000 from the account in the name of the plaintiff, director, to the account in the name of HongCC, etc. from January 26, 2007 to December 21, 2007, and ② from January 8, 2008 to September 13, 2008, the sum total of KRW 000 has been remitted to the account in the name of SouthD, etc., and ③ from October 30 to December 28, 2009, the sum total of KRW 00 has been remitted to the account in the name of EE from October 30, 209 to December 28, 2009. However, there is no objective evidence that there is no objective evidence to support that the expenses have been paid by the plaintiff for publicity such as a private teaching institute operated by the plaintiff.

2) Welfare expenses

살피건대， 갑 제3호증의 기재에 의하면 아래와 같이 노BB 명의의 계좌에서 ① 2007. 1. 25.부터 2007. 12. 10.까지 안FF 등 명의의 계좌로 합계 000원이 각 송금된 사실，② 2008. 1. 8.부터 2008. 12. 16.까지 정GG 등 명의의 계좌로 합계 000원이 각 송금된 사실，③ 2009. 1. 8.부터 2009. 12. 8.까지 정GG 등 명의의 계좌로 합계 0000원이 각 송금된 사실이 인정된다. 그러나 ① 권HH， 김II， 김JJ， 김KK， 안FF， 이LL, 이MM， 이NN，장PP， 최QQ， 한RR， 황SS， 황TT 등이 원고의 직원이었다고 인정할 만한 객관적 증거가 없는 점，② 김UU， 안VV， 이WW， 최XX 등이 2007년부터 2009년까지 사이 의 기간 동안 원고의 직원이었다고 인정할 만한 객관적 증거가 없는 점，③ 2009. 1. 10. 고YY 명의의 계좌로 송금된 000원이 고YY의 조의금이라는 사실을 인정할 만한 객관적 증거가 없는 점，④ 2009. 6. 12. 송금된 000원이 황ZZ의 조의금 이라는 사실을 인정할 만한 객관적 증거가 없는 점，⑤ 2009. 11. 23. 김aa 명의의 계좌로 송금된 000원이 김aa의 축의금이라는 사실을 인정할 만한 객관적 증거 가 없는 점，⑥ 2009. 9. 18. 전bb 명의의 계좌로 송금된 000원이 오cc과 전dd의 퇴직금이라는 사실을 인정할 만한 객관적 증거가 없는 점 등을 고려하면， 원고가 제출한 증거들만으로는 위 000원(= 000원 + 000원 + 0000원)이 원고가 고용한 직원들의 복리를 위하여 지출되었다고 인정하기에 부족하고， 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없으므로， 원고의 이 부분 주장은 이유 없다.

(iii) a revocation refund;

According to the statements in Gap evidence No. 3, it is recognized that the sum total of KRW 000 from the account under the name of Nowon, including ① from January 23, 2007 to December 27, 2007, was remitted, and ② from February 13, 2008 to December 8, 2008, the sum total of KRW 000 has been remitted to the account under the name of Leeff, etc., and ③ from January 15, 2009 to November 5, 2009 to the account under the name of Kim Gg, etc. from January 15, 2009. However, the plaintiff's assertion in this part of this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit, there is no evidence to support that the plaintiff is a student after paying tuition fees after cancelling the application for the course at the private teaching institute operated by the plaintiff.

(iv) facility equipment;

According to the statements in Gap evidence No. 3, it is recognized that the sum total of KRW 000 has been transferred from the account under the name of Nowon, such as No. 1 to September 5, 2007, from January 18, 2007, to the account under the name of No. 3, and from September 5, 2007, and that KRW 000 has been transferred to the account under the name of KimO on November 6, 2008, and KRW 000 has been transferred to the account under the name of No. 3, such as YellowO from March 1, 2009 to December 3, 2009. However, there is no evidence to support that the plaintiff paid KRW 00 to KimO on January 2, 2007, and there is no objective evidence to support that the plaintiff operated a private teaching institute for heating and cooling cleaning.

5) Entertainment expenses and transportation expenses;

According to the statements in Gap evidence No. 3, it is recognized that the sum total of KRW 000 has been withdrawn from the account under the name of Nowon to December 31, 2007, as follows, from January 5, 2007 to December 31, 2007, and ② the sum total of KRW 000 has been withdrawn from January 7, 2008 to November 25, 2008, and ③ the sum total of KRW 000 has been withdrawn from January 7, 2009 to November 19, 2009, and transferred to the account under the name of EO on March 24, 2009. However, there is no objective evidence that there is no objective evidence that it is recognized that the entertainment expenses and transportation expenses have been paid.

3. Conclusion

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