Whether the exclusion of gold bullion from necessary expenses is legitimate

This case’s tax invoice is also included in the facts constituting the crime of the decision rendered by the data merchant, and it is extremely exceptional that the Plaintiff had his employee transfer the purchase price to the purchaser, and it can be ratified that the instant tax invoice is the processed tax invoice.

Article 27 (Calculation of Necessary Expenses)

Article 80 of the Income Tax Act shall be decided and corrected.

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 14,347,600 against the Plaintiff on November 7, 2005 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the whole pleadings in the entries in Gap evidence 7, Eul evidence 1, and evidence 2-2.

A. The Plaintiff, who runs a wholesale business at 00,000 00 00 - 727-6,000 - 727-6, now, included the amount equivalent to the value of supply in necessary expenses on the basis of a tax invoice of April 8, 2004 (hereinafter “tax invoice of this case”) equivalent to the value of supply as of April 8, 2004, based on the name of the 00 Mauritius (hereinafter “10 Mauritius”) at the time of filing a final tax return on global income tax for 2004.

B. On November 7, 2005, the Defendant issued a correction notice stating that the value of supply 45,199,980 won should be included in necessary expenses on the ground that the instant tax invoice is a processing tax invoice for which no real transaction exists (hereinafter “instant disposition”), and that the Plaintiff should additionally pay KRW 14,347,600 to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The parties' assertion

The defendant asserts that the disposition of this case is legitimate in light of the reasons for the disposition and the provisions of the relevant laws and regulations. Accordingly, the plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case is unlawful since 00 person's own wife, who actually operates the release on bail, directly own cash and actually purchased 3 km from 00 person's day and deposited the price, and then received the tax invoice of this case.

B. Determination

Article 27 (1) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8144 of Dec. 30, 2006) provides that the amount to be included in necessary expenses in the calculation of real estate rental income, business income, temporary property income, other income, or forest income shall be the total sum of the expenses corresponding to the total amount of income in the year concerned, which is generally accepted, and the burden of proving that the tax invoice is false, in principle, to the defendant who is the tax authority, should prove that the tax invoice is not accompanied by real transactions on the basis of direct evidence or all the circumstances.

Therefore, considering the overall purport of arguments as to whether the tax invoice of this case was issued falsely without real transaction, Gap evidence 6, 7 Eul evidence 7, Eul evidence 7-1, 11, the representative director on the 00-day date received false tax invoices over 163 times in the name of 00, and 1,48 were indicted for preparing and delivering false tax invoices over 1,400, and the above judgment became final and conclusive around 00,000, which was delivered 1,000 won of 00,000 won of 1,40,000 won of 0,000 won of 1,000 won of 0,000 won of 1,40,000 won of 0,000 won of 1,00 won of 0,000 won of 0,000 won of 3,00 won of 1,000 won of 1,000 won of 1,000 won of 4,00.

Thus, the disposition of this case is legitimate where the defendant recognized that the tax invoice of this case was issued falsely without real transaction.

3. Conclusion

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