Seocho 2010west 2166 ( November 15, 201)

The fuel cost borne by taxi drivers is reasonable to exclude the taxi company from deductible expenses.

The fuel cost of the individual taxi driver is reasonable to exclude the amount from the deductible expenses, and it is not proved that the amount was appropriated as the transport income amount, but the disposition denying the false fuel cost and the processing benefit does not correspond to the reasons for estimation, but does not require to exclude the subsidy from the gross income on the ground that the false fuel cost was not deductible expenses.

2012Revocation of disposition of revocation of imposition of corporate tax, etc.

AAAA Transportation Co., Ltd. and one other

Head of Yangcheon Tax Office et al.

April 19, 2013

July 5, 2013

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the defendant on February 3, 2010, 200 won for corporate tax of 006, 000 won for 2000 won for 200 years for 20 years for 20 years for 200 years for 200 years for 20 years for 200 years for 30 years for 20 years for 200 years for 200 years for 200 years for 200 years for 200 years for 207, for 2000 for 20 years for 30 years for 20 years for 200 years for 20 years for 207, for 200 for 20 years for 20 years for 2007, and for 20 years for 20 years for 20 years for 20 years for 30 years for 20 years for 20 years for 200 years for OD for 207.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Plaintiff AAA transportation is a corporation that is engaged in OO in Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, while Plaintiff DD transportation is a corporation that is engaged in each taxi transportation business, etc. in Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government OOOO.

(b) The Director of Seoul Regional Tax Office shall include 00 won for the tax investigation of the plaintiffs, 00 won for 0 20 years, 00 won for 20 years for 00 years for 20 years for 00 years for 20 years for 00 years for 200 years for 20 years for 00 years for 200 years for 20 years for 00 years for 200 years for 2000 for 20 years for 2000 for 30 years for 20 years for 2000 for 20 years for 30 years for - for 200 items for - for 00 for 20 years for - for 200 items for - for 00 items for - for 20 items for - for 0 items for 3 years for - for items for 1 for - to be paid to the plaintiffs.

[Based on Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply) and Eul evidence 7 to 13, and the purport of the whole pleadings

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

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

1) Since the instant fuel cost also occurred in relation to the Plaintiffs’ business, a tax invoice for the instant fuel cost is a normal tax invoice, and the value of supply can be deducted as an input tax amount.

2) The plaintiffs included the fuel cost of this case and the outstanding amount in deductible expenses that cannot be included in deductible expenses. To offset them, the amount equivalent to the fuel cost of this case and the outstanding amount in this case should be included in the gross income in order to offset them, and ① The plaintiff AA transportation included the total of 000 won in the gross income of 2006, and 000 won in the gross income of 2007, and 000 won in the gross income of 2008, and ② the plaintiff DD transportation included the total of 00 won in the gross income of 2006, 000 won in the gross income of 2007, and 000 won in the gross income of 2008, and the amount to be included in the gross income of 00 won in the fuel cost of this case and the outstanding amount in this case - The plaintiff AA transportation included the total of 00 won in the gross income of 00 won in the gross income of 2000.

3) The fuel cost subsidies may be paid to those who bear the fuel cost, and the fuel cost subsidies for the instant fuel cost should be deducted from the sales of the Plaintiffs. As such, Plaintiff AAA transportation should be deducted from the sales of the Plaintiffs, and Plaintiff DD transportation should be deducted from the sales of the fuel cost of KRW 000.

4) Of the instant benefits, the amount excluding the national pension insurance premiums, health insurance premiums, employment insurance premiums, and industrial accident insurance premiums (hereinafter “the instant insurance premium”) paid by the Plaintiffs in fact shall be included in the gross income, and the Plaintiff AAAA transportation paid KRW 000 as the instant insurance premium, and the Plaintiff DD transportation paid KRW 00 as the instant insurance premium. As such, the amount to be included in the gross income out of the instant benefits is ① 000 for Plaintiff AA transportation and ② Plaintiff DD transportation is KRW 000 for Plaintiff D transportation (=00).

5) The notice of change in the amount of income is based on the premise that there is the amount included in the calculation of the income, and there is no amount included in the calculation of the income in the calculation of the tax base in 2004 for plaintiff AA transportation, and the notice of change in the amount of income forO is illegal disposition.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Facts of recognition

1) The Plaintiffs classified into two parts into two parts: (a) the full-scale management system in which a company pays, pays, pays, pays, pays, pays, pays, and pays four major insurance and fuel costs (00 a day); and (b) the company pays, pays, pays, and pays, pays, and pays, and pays, and pays, the four major insurance and fuel costs; and (c) operate as a daily fixed system in which a certain amount of taxi commission is paid.

2) The Plaintiffs included the instant fuel cost in deductible expenses, and received tax invoices therefor, and deducted the supply value as input tax amount. The detailed details are as follows.

(Detailed omitted)

3) The Plaintiffs, who prepared a processing salary ledger to be exempted from being subjected to a disposition to reduce the number of automobiles in violation of Article 12 of the Passenger Transport Service Act (Prohibition against Use of Name, etc.), was also paid as daily fixed-scale engineers, etc., and included the instant benefits in deductible expenses, and the details thereof are as follows.

(Detailed omitted)

4) The Plaintiffs did not include the outstanding amount in the gross income even though they received the outstanding amount by the method of deducting the benefits, and the detailed details thereof are as follows.

(Detailed omitted)

[Basis of Recognition] The facts without dispute, Eul evidence 1 to 6, and the whole purport of the pleading

D. Determination

1) Determination on the first argument

Article 17(1)1 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that the amount of value-added tax to be paid by an entrepreneur shall be the amount calculated by subtracting the amount of tax for the supply of goods or services used or to be used for his own business (hereinafter referred to as “purchase tax amount”) from the amount of tax for the goods or services supplied by him (hereinafter referred to as “sales tax amount”). As seen above, daily fixed-amount articles, as seen above, pay a certain amount of taxi commission to the Plaintiffs without receiving all fuel fees from the Plaintiffs, and the transportation income except the above taxi commission belongs to both daily fixed-amount articles, and the daily fixed-amount article is a separate entrepreneur from the Plaintiff, who actually engages in his responsibility and account, and that the daily fixed-amount article is a separate entrepreneur from the Plaintiff. Therefore, the instant fuel cost borne by the daily fixed-amount article cannot be deemed as the amount of tax for the supply of goods used by the Plaintiffs for his business, and this part of

2) Determination on the second argument

In order to correct any error or omission in the contents of a taxpayer's return, it is called a principle to be applied to the account books or evidence, but if any error or omission is recognized by other data and it is possible to conduct an on-site investigation, it may be corrected by other data. In general, in a lawsuit seeking revocation of a tax disposition, the taxpayer is liable to prove the facts required for taxation. However, if it is found that the other party is found to have a taxation requirement in light of the empirical rule in the specific litigation process, it cannot be readily concluded that the other party is an illegal disposition that fails to meet the taxation requirement unless it proves the circumstances that the facts at issue are not eligible for the application of the empirical rule (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du14284, Apr. 27, 2004). It is hard to find that the plaintiffs paid the amount equivalent to the fuel cost of this case to the daily fixed-amount article, and there is no evidence to support that the plaintiffs included the amount corresponding to the fuel cost of this case in the amount corresponding to the plaintiff A00, and there is no evidence to support that the plaintiffs's portion corresponding to the fuel cost of this case.

3) Judgment on the third argument

In addition, there is no evidence to support that the plaintiffs paid fuel subsidies to the daily fixed-amount product of this case, and the statement of Gap 20thm alone is insufficient to recognize that the fuel subsidies to be paid to the plaintiffs AAA transportation to the daily fixed-amount product of 00 won and the fuel subsidies to be paid to the plaintiffs DD transportation to the daily fixed-amount product of 000 won, and there is no other evidence to support this. Accordingly, this part of the part of this part of the plaintiffs is without merit.

4) Judgment on the fourth argument

과세처분의 위법을 이유로 그 취소를 구하는 소송에서 처분의 적법성 및 과세 요건사실의 존재에 관한 입증책임은 과세관청에 있으므로 법인세의 과세표준인 소득액 확정의 기초가 되는 손금에 산업할 비용액에 대한 입증책임도 원칙적으로 과세관청에 있으나1 납세의무자가 신고한 비용 중의 일부 금액이 실지비용인지의 여부가 다투어져 서 그것이 허위임이 밝혀지거나 납세의무자 스스로 신고금액이 허위임을 시인하면서 같은 금액만큼의 다른 비용에 소요되었다고 주장하는 경우에는 그 다른 비용의 존재와 액수에 대하여는 납세의무자가 이를 입증할 필요가 있다고 보아야 한다(대법원 1994. 10. 28. 선고 94누5816 판결 참조). 살피건대， 원고들이 납부하였다고 주장하는 이 사건 보험료는 실제 급여대장에 기재되어 있는 보험료 총액과 가공 급여대장에 기재되어 있는 보험료 총액의 차액인 바， 앞서 거시한 증거와 인정한 사실에 변론 전체의 취지를 더하여 얄 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정들， 즉 ① 을 제4호증(급여대장)은 원고들이 실제로 이 사건 보험료를 납부하였다고 인정할 만한 증거가 될 수 없는 점，② 갑 제10호증에는 원고들이 납부한 보험료 총액만이 기재되어 있어 갑 제10호증의 기재만으로는 원고들이 실제로 이 사건 보험료를 납부하였다고 인정하기에 부족한 점，® 갑 제16， 17호증에는 보험 가입자가 일일정액제 기사인지 전액관리제 기사인지 구분되어 있지 않아 갑 제16， 17호증의 각 기재만으로는 원고들이 실제로 이 사건 보험료를 납입하였다고 인정하기에 부족한 점 등을 종합하면， 원고들이 제출한 증거들만으로는 원고들이 이 사건 보험료를 납부하였다고 인정하기에 부족하고， 달리 이를 인정할 만한 증거가 없다. 따라서 원고들의 이 부분 주장은 이유 없다.

5) Judgment on the fifth argument

According to the evidence evidence No. 13, the defendant Yangcheon Tax Office's correction of the tax base of plaintiff AAA transportation in 2004, it is recognized that the fuel cost of 000 won was non-deductible and the bonus disposition for O was made. Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion on this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiffs' claims of this case are all dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.