Changwon District Court 201Guhap3829 (2013.09)

National Tax Service Review Income 2011-0163 (25 April 2012)

The bonus disposal for the provisional payment is legitimate, deeming that the special relationship between the plaintiff and the corporation was extinguished at the time of closure.

(1) Even if the dissolution and liquidation procedures were not followed, it is reasonable to view that the special relationship with the Plaintiff was extinguished at the time of closure of the business, and since the provisional payment was not recovered not only at the time of closure but also at the time of the closure of the business, it can be deemed that the provisional payment was renounced or impossible to recover, and therefore, the bonus disposal for the provisional payment is legitimate.

Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act; Article 106 of the Enforcement Decree thereof

(original)2013Nu1396 global income and revocation of disposition;

IsaA

00. Head of tax office

Changwon District Court Decision 201Guhap3829 Decided July 9, 2013

April 3, 2014

May 1, 2014

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The imposition of global income tax (this tax) on the Plaintiff on December 1, 201 and the imposition of global income tax (additional tax) on the global income for the year 2008, which belongs to the Plaintiff on December 1, 201 and the imposition of global income tax (additional tax) on the global income tax (additional tax) on the December 1, 201, shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's explanation on this case is identical to the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the dismissal of part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in Paragraph (2). Thus, it is citing it as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 4

2. Parts in height:

The fourth through fifth 19 pages of the judgment of the first instance court shall be as follows.

1) Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act and the proviso of Article 106 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provide that the amount included in the calculation of the corporate tax shall be deemed to have been reverted to the representative in determining or revising the corporate tax base. The recognition contribution system as representative under the Corporate Tax Act provides that the representative shall not be based on the fact that such income has accrued to the representative, but shall be deemed as a bonus to a de facto representative regardless of the substance of a certain fact that can be recognized as such act in order to prevent an unfair act under the tax law, so the representative shall be liable to pay the income tax of Class A regardless of whether the amount is actually attributed to himself/herself, unless it proves that the amount is clearly included in the above gross income (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2006Da49789, Sept. 18, 2008).

According to the evidence No. 3-2, No. 4, No. 6-1, 2, and 11, the non-party company did not recover OO members, which are the provisional payment, as of December 31, 2007, and the non-party company did not have human and physical facilities necessary for its business after the report on the closure of business on July 30, 2007, and did not report or pay corporate tax or value-added tax. The non-party company was dissolved and liquidation procedures on January 18, 201, which was after receiving the notice of prior notice of taxation from the defendant on December 21, 201, which was after receiving the notice of prior notice of taxation from the defendant on January 18, 201. According to the above facts of recognition, the non-party company held claims for the provisional payment of this case, and thus, it is reasonable to deem the non-party company to have renounced the claim for the provisional payment of this case in the year 207.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.