Whether the donations contributed to the instant temple are subject to income deduction

The Plaintiff was issued a donation receipt of this case lower in spite of the fact that it did not have contributed a corresponding amount to the instant temple, and thus is not subject to income deduction.

Article 34 (Non-Inclusion of Donations in Necessary Expenses)

2016Guhap1258 Global Income and Revocation of Disposition

Section AA

BB Director of the Tax Office

November 29, 2016

January 24, 2017

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant respectively revokes the imposition of global income tax of KRW 812,370 for the year 209, global income tax of KRW 191,770 for the year 2010, global income tax of KRW 412,300 for the year 2009, and global income tax of KRW 412,300 for the year 2013.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff submitted a donation receipt (hereinafter “the donation receipt in this case”) to the Defendant that the Defendant donated KRW 3.7 million in the year 2009, KRW 3.8 million in the year 2010, and KRW 2.3 million in the year 2013 to GG (hereinafter “the instant inspection”) which is a religious organization affiliated with the DD E EF FF FF 335-1, while working in CCCP, and received a donation receipt (hereinafter “the instant donation receipt”) from the Defendant with respect to global income tax for the year 2009, 2010, and 2.3 million in the year 2013.

B. On July 2014, the director of the NorthD Tax Office investigated the instant temple as a tax offense against the instant temple. As a result, he/she accused him/her as a crime of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act by deeming that the inspection of the instant case was an excessive issuance of donation receipts in a false manner. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of taxation data that the donations contributed to the instant temple are not subject to income deduction.

C. On April 16, 2015, the Defendant issued a correction and notification of KRW 812,370 of global income tax for the year 2009, KRW 191,770 of global income tax for the year 2010, and KRW 412,30 of global income tax for the year 2013 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on April 1, 2016, but was dismissed on the grounds that the appeal was dismissed.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff actually donated cash to the inspection of this case and caused normal occurrence of the donation receipt of this case.

Although the defendant received income deduction, the defendant made a false donation receipt and made the disposition of this case, so the disposition of this case must be revoked as illegal.

B. Relevant statutes

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

C. Determination

1) In the administrative litigation seeking the revocation of taxation on the grounds of illegality of taxation, the tax authority bears the burden of proving the legality of taxation and the existence of the taxation requirement. The burden of proving necessary expenses, which are the basis of the determination of taxable income, is also the principle that the tax authority bears the burden of proving necessary expenses. However, the above legal principle applies to income deduction that is the basis of the determination of taxable income, as it is proved by the tax authority that a tax invoice on some of the expenses reported by the taxpayer was falsely prepared without real transactions, and there are special circumstances, such as where it is argued by the taxpayer and the taxpayer have been proved to a considerable extent that the taxpayer is false. As such, it is exceptionally necessary to prove that it is easy for the taxpayer to present books and documentary evidence, etc. regarding the fact that such expenses have been actually paid (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Du1439, Aug. 20, 200; 96Nu8192, Sept. 26, 1997).

2) In light of such legal principles, in full view of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff received the donation receipt of this case in a false manner, even though the Plaintiff did not have contributed the amount corresponding to the inspection of this case, even though it did not have contributed the amount to the inspection of this case, on the grounds that there was no dispute between the parties, or that the Plaintiff was issued the donation receipt of this case on each entry of the evidence Nos. 3 through 18 (including each serial number).

① The total amount of a donation receipt issued for five years from 2009 to 2013 reaches KRW 10.5 billion per annum. The representative of the instant temple was sentenced to one year of suspended execution for six months as of June 11, 2015 in the case of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (hereinafter “D District Court 2014 high-scale 10412”), which issued false donation receipts between 2009 to 2013, and was sentenced to one year of suspended execution for 6 months. The judgment of the appellate court 2015No2042 was rendered on February 16, 201, and it was difficult to prove that there was no conviction on the remaining facts of the instant donation receipt as of February 16, 2016 (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da162063, Jun. 26, 2016). However, the judgment of the appellate court 2000, which found that there was no conviction on the remaining facts of the Plaintiff’s indictment.

② The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff actually withdrawn the amount equivalent to the amount of donation from the Plaintiff’s account and donated it to the instant temple prior to the date of donation entered in the certificate of cash payment of donations and the ledger for the management of Sims. However, the aforementioned certificate and the management ledger are not documents submitted by the Plaintiff at the time of income deduction, but are prepared after the instant disposition against the Plaintiff. Accordingly, it is difficult to avoid the possibility that the details were prepared in line with the details of cash withdrawal from the Plaintiff’s and the Plaintiff’s parent’s account.

③ If both the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s parents reside in Ansan-si at their domicile, it is unreasonable to view that the instant temple was located in D and made a donation by visiting the instant temple several times in the month same as the Plaintiff’s payment details of donations claimed.

④ The Plaintiff asserts that he actively supported the operation of the inspection from the time of the establishment of the inspection of this case, in relation to the relationship between the chief of the inspection of this case and the chief of the inspection of this case. However, the establishment of the inspection of this case was 200 years and the Plaintiff’s commencement of receipt for donation from the inspection of this case was made in 2006.

⑤ During the objection procedure against the instant disposition, the Plaintiff stated that he attended the National Assembly of Korea and made a contribution, but the Plaintiff did not attend, and asked whether his parents could not be deducted from his labor income tax, and that he received a contribution deduction for the instant temple since 2006. In particular, the Plaintiff did not appear to have any circumstance to make a contribution to the instant temple as the believers of the instant temple, and it is difficult to evaluate that the portion of the Plaintiff’s assertion regarding the contribution was withdrawn from the Plaintiff’s account, not from the Plaintiff’s account, and that it was made by the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is not accepted.

3. Conclusion

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