The taxpayer bears the burden of proving the additional cost claimed by the taxpayer to be omitted in the initial return or rectification.

As to whether the labor cost of this case, which was claimed to have been omitted at the time of the initial tax investigation, actually reverts to the business year 2007, the plaintiff must prove the facts recognized and the whole purport of the evidence and arguments submitted by the plaintiff, it cannot be recognized that the labor cost of this case was reverted to the business year 200

2013Guhap1055 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Corporate Tax, etc.

AAA Industry Corporation

The head of Yangcheon Tax Office

October 31, 2013

January 9, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The defendant imposed corporate tax on the plaintiff on February 25, 201 for the business year 2007, and the person to whom the income accrued shall be SouthB, and the notification of the change in the income amount disposed of as the bonus of the OOO won for the business year 2007 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 2010, the Board of Audit and Inspection notified the Defendant that there is a suspicion that the Plaintiff, who is engaged in the construction work as a result of the audit on the actual status of the implementation of the labor welfare subsidies, including unemployment benefits, for the Ministry of Employment and Labor and four institutions, including unemployment benefits, has counted the labor cost for daily workers (OOO for the business year 2007, OOO for the business year 2008, OOOO for the business year 2008, and OOO for the business year 2009).

B. The Defendant: (a) conducted a partial investigation of corporate tax on the Plaintiff; and (b) deemed the Plaintiff as the processing labor cost for the business year 2007 when the Plaintiff reported out of the OOO members for the business year 2007, less the KRW OO members confirmed by the data submitted by the Plaintiff; (b) imposed corporate tax on the Plaintiff in the business year 2007; and (c) imposed the income on the Plaintiff as the bonus from the OO members for the business year 2007 when the person to whom the income accrued was attributed, and notified the Plaintiff of the change in the amount of income arising from the said disposition of income (hereinafter “instant disposition”). The Plaintiff asserted for a trial with the Tax Tribunal on May 25, 2011, but was dismissed on December 26, 2012.

[Based on recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

“The Plaintiff paid the labor cost incurred in December 2007 to the Plaintiff in January 2008, which constitutes the labor cost for the year 2007, and the actual labor cost actually paid by the Plaintiff exceeds the labor cost reported by the Plaintiff for the business year 2007, and thus, the disposition of this case based on the premise that the Plaintiff appropriated the processing labor cost for the business year 2007.”

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Facts of recognition

1) At the time of filing a corporate tax for the business year 2007, the Plaintiff included the labor cost for daily employed workers in the income statement for the business year 2007, and submitted a statement of payment of daily earned income.

2) The Seoul Southern District Prosecutors' Office (Seoul Southern District Prosecutors' Office) discovered the fact that there was false personal information on the payment record of the said daily earned income submitted by the Plaintiff while investigating the Plaintiff's illegal receipt of unemployment benefits.

"3) At the time of the tax investigation, the plaintiff submitted only the statement of labor cost (Evidence A7) in 2007, but did not submit the original market register (employment-related documents, work logs, etc.), "4) the defendant confirmed that OOO members entered in the 2007 207 2007 2007 200, and recognized the above money as labor cost for the business year 2007 5) by asserting that the plaintiff paid labor cost incurred in December 2007 in the lawsuit of this case in January 2008.

6) According to the statement of collective transfer transaction (Evidence A8) submitted by the Plaintiff, it is confirmed that the Plaintiff paid the money in January 2008 as follows.

See Table 4 see Court Decision 4

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap's evidence Nos. 3, 7, 8, 9, Eul's evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

In a lawsuit seeking revocation on the grounds of illegality of taxation, the tax authority has the burden of proving the legality of disposition and the existence of taxation requirements. Therefore, in principle, the tax authority bears the burden of proving the amount of expenses to be included in necessary expenses, which are the basis of determining the amount of income tax, but in a case where the taxpayer claims that some of the expenses reported by the taxpayer are false or that the reported amount is false and thus the taxpayer is required for other expenses equivalent to the same amount, the taxpayer needs to prove the existence and amount of other expenses (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Nu5816, Oct. 28, 1994; 96Nu8192, Sept. 26, 1997).

In light of the above legal principles, the plaintiff must prove that the labor cost of this case, which was alleged to be omitted at the time of initial tax investigation, is actual labor cost for the business year 2007. Thus, in light of the above legal principles, the plaintiff must prove the following circumstances, i.e., the plaintiff not only at the time of filing a corporate tax return for the business year 2007 but also at the time of the tax investigation. ii) The plaintiff asserted that the labor cost of this case was paid to daily workers through the head of the working group. However, the plaintiff asserted that the labor cost of this case was not an original market for the fixed number of wage and salary income or specific labor details and the payment of wages. (iii) The plaintiff argued that the labor cost of OOOOOO members paid in January 2007 was calculated as labor cost for the business year 2007, it is difficult to prove that the labor cost of this case was already included in deductible expenses for the business year 2008 business year, and there is no other evidence to prove that the labor cost of this case is actual labor cost for the witness Gap 200.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit.