Whether a person is subject to simple expense rate

The Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have obtained income below the standard income amount under Article 143(4)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act by leasing the instant office office to AA alone Holdings in 2012, and the Defendant’s disposition of this case by applying standard expense rate to the income amount in 2013 when the Plaintiff’s business was commenced in 2013.

Article 143 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (Estimated Decision and Revision)

2017Guhap5776 global income and revocation of such disposition

○ ○

00. Head of tax office

on October 24, 2017

on 21, 2017

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposing global income tax of KRW 000 (including additional tax) for the year 2013 against the Plaintiff on May 4, 2016 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 2, 2008, the Plaintiff acquired a 000-36 square meters of forest land of 000-36 m20,000,000 m2 (hereinafter “00 m2”). The said land was divided into 00-36 m2,000 m2,000 and 00-47 m292 m2,000 m20,000 m20-36 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,00-47 m292 m2,00 m2,00 m2,00 m2,00 m2,00 m2,00 m2,00 to each site on March 11, 2013 (hereinafter “the instant land”).

B. On May 7, 2012, the Plaintiff registered the instant land as “AABD” (a type of construction business, type of construction business, and housing sales business) with the trade name of “AABD” at the place of business.

C. The Plaintiff newly built, on a 00 Ri, 00-36 large 544 square meters, one Dong (AAAart BGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG) and one unit of a 4-story residential building (AAart BGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG) on a 40-Ri36 large 544 square meters, and obtained approval for the use of the instant building on February 1, 2013.

D. From September 2013 to December 2013, the Plaintiff sold the instant building for each household, and filed a global income tax return for June 30, 2014, and on June 30, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a global income tax return for the immediately preceding business year, and the amount of income for the immediately preceding business year is less than the standard amount of income for construction business under Article 143(4)2 (b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25193, Feb. 21, 2014; hereinafter referred to as “Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act”). Inasmuch as the Plaintiff’s sales of the instant building falls under 2,533,000,000

The global income tax of 102,743,389 won was reported and paid in 2013 when the simple expense rate was applied to the source.

E. On May 4, 2016, the Defendant calculated the income amount applying standard expense rate again on the ground that the Plaintiff did not fall under a business proprietor who commenced a new business in 2013 and was not subject to the application of simple expense rate under Article 143(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, and applied standard expense rate other than the simple expense rate at the time of estimation of global income tax for the year 2013 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

F. On July 1, 2016, the Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on July 1, 2016,

January 2, 2017 was dismissed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, 10 to 13, Eul evidence 1 to 7

Each description of each number, including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleading;

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Article 143 (4) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that simplified expense rate shall be applied to a business operator whose total amount of revenue in the immediately preceding taxable period falls short of a certain amount in order to estimate income tax, and subparagraph 2 (b) of the same Article stipulates that the revenue in the immediately preceding taxable period is less than KRW 36 million as a simple expense rate application standard in the case of a construction business for the purpose of supplying residential buildings. On December 2012, the Plaintiff completed the building of this case, and among them, leased AAAAA Art Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong (hereinafter referred to as the "office of this case") to AAAA alone Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong Do-do. On December 2012, 201.

Therefore, the Plaintiff obtained income from the lease of the instant office in the year 2012, which was the taxable year immediately before the sales of the instant building, from less than KRW 36 million, and thus, the simple expense rate should be applied to the business income accrued in 2013. However, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff started business in 2013 and rendered the instant disposition by applying the standard expense rate. The above disposition should be revoked illegally.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) With respect to the instant office, the following lease agreements were made between the Plaintiff and AA alone.

○○ lease contract 1 (No. 4, hereinafter referred to as "the instant contract dated November 20, 2012")

- Conclusion Date: November 20, 2012

- Lease deposit: None.

- Rent: 500,000 won per month

- Term of lease: from the date of delivery to November 19, 2014

○○ lease contract 2 (A evidence No. 5, B No. 5, hereinafter referred to as the "Contract on December 1, 2012 of this case")

- Conclusion Date: December 1, 2012

- Lease deposit: 20 million won

- Rent: 500,000 won per month

- Term of lease: from the date of delivery to November 30, 2014

.

2) AA홀딩스의 대표이사인 김@@가 2012. 12. 24. 원고 명의의 계좌로 50만 원, 2013. 1. 9. 100만 원, 2013. 1. 14. 50만 원을 각 이체하였다.

3) On December 10, 2012, an employee KimO of AA Holdings reported the change of the Plaintiff’s business registration from 120,202 to 46-47 to 120,000 U.S. Sinpo-Eup’s Mapo-si’s Mapo-si’s Mapo-si, and on December 17, 2012, on behalf of the Plaintiff, filed an application for changing the Plaintiff’s business registration from the ordinary business operator to the duty-free business operator.

4) On February 10, 2013, the Plaintiff reported the report on current status of report on current status to the head of Echeon Tax Office as KRW 500,000,000, and on May 31, 2013, the Plaintiff reported the amount of income for the year 2012 to the Defendant as the amount of business income upon filing a report on global income tax for the year 2

5) 원고는 2013. 12. 9. 김@@와 이 사건 사무실에 관하여 매매대금을 1억 3,300만 원으로 하는 매매계약을 체결하였고, 2013. 12. 30. 위 매매를 원인으로 이 사건 사무실에 관하여 김@@ 명의의 소유권이전등기가 마쳐졌다.

6) On December 30, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with 190 million won with respect to the first floor (53.28 square meters) and No. 124.79 square meters (124.79 square meters) moving into YO and AAAAAE, and on December 31, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with respect to each of the foregoing households on the grounds of the said sale. The registration of ownership transfer in the name of YO was completed for each of the foregoing households on the grounds of the said sale.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's evidence 3, 4, 6, 7, 17, 18, 26, 27, and Eul's evidence 4 to 7

Each entry, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 4 through 7, 9, and 10 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have obtained income less than the standard income amount provided for in Article 143(4)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act by leasing the instant office to AArun Holdings in 2012, and the Defendant’s disposition of this case by applying standard expense rate to the income amount in 2013, deeming the Plaintiff’s business commencement to be lawful. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s aforementioned assertion on a different premise is without merit.

① The Plaintiff asserts that: (a) around December 2012, 2012, it was difficult for the Plaintiff to conclude a lease agreement with a crowdfunding broker; (b) around 200,000 won; (c) however, it is difficult for the Plaintiff to conclude a lease agreement with a crowdfunding broker; (d) the Plaintiff to submit a separate request for correction of the terms and conditions of the lease agreement with the Plaintiff on November 20, 2012, and the agreement on December 1, 2012, which are different from the Plaintiff, with respect to the lease of the office; and (e) there was no objective submission of the Plaintiff’s request for correction of the terms and conditions of the lease agreement with the Plaintiff on December 20, 2012, on the ground that there was no objective submission of the Plaintiff’s request for correction of the terms and conditions of the lease agreement with the Plaintiff on December 1, 2012, and there was no objective submission of the Plaintiff’s request for correction of the terms and conditions of the agreement with the Plaintiff.

② AA홀딩스의 대표이사인 김@@ 명의의 계좌에서 2012. 12. 24. 50만 원, 2013.1. 9. 100만 원, 2013. 1. 14. 50만 원이 각 원고 명의의 계좌로 이체된 사실은 앞서 본 바와 같으나, 위 각 돈의 이체 원인을 알 수 있는 기재 내지 자료가 존재하지 않는 점, AA홀딩스가 아닌 김@@ 개인 명의의 계좌에서 위 각 돈이 이체된 점, 원고가 차임 지급에 관한 또 다른 증거로 제출한 AA홀딩스의 출금전표(갑 제23호증의 1)와 계정별 원장(갑 제23호증의 2)에는 원고에 대한 2012. 12.분 차임의 지급시점이 2012.12. 21.로 되어 있는 점, 원고는 위 각 돈 중 2013. 1. 이체된 150만 원이 2013년 차임 중 3개월분에 해당한다고 주장하나, AA홀딩스가 2013년 차임 중 3개월분을 위와 같은 시점에 위와 같은 방식으로 지급할 이유도 없어 보이는 점 등을 고려하면, 김@@가 원고에게 이체한 위 각 돈이 이 사건 사무실의 임차와 관련한 AA홀딩스의 차임에 해당한다고 보기는 어렵다(또한 원고는 이 사건 사무실에 관한 2013년도 차임 중 나머지 9개월분 450만 원은 김@@가 2013. 12. 9. 원고로부터 위 사무실을 매수하면서 매매대금에 포함하여 지급한 것이라고 주장하나, 매매계약서에 위와 같은 내용이 기재되어 있지 않고, 달리 이를 인정할 만한 자료가 존재하지도 않으며, 이 사건 사무실의 매매대금이 AA아트빌 제에이동 지하층 매매대금보다 높다는 등 원고가 들고 있는 사정만으로 원고의 위와 같은 주장을 인정할 수도 없다).

③ Since January 1, 2013, there was no details reported by the Plaintiff on the lease of the instant office, and there is no fact that the remainder of the household except the instant office was leased even though each of the households of the instant building sold at the time similar to the instant office. Moreover, the Plaintiff did not add the content of the real estate rental business to the business registration, asserting that the Plaintiff acquired the lease income from the instant office to the AAA Holdings, and instead changed the business registration from the general business operator on December 17, 2012 to the tax-exempt business operator.

④ The Plaintiff asserted that the instant building was already completed around December 2012, which was prior to approval for use, and that AAA alone used the instant office from that time. However, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s aforementioned facts were recognized solely on the materials, such as the on-site photographs, water facility completion receipts, AAAA Holdings’s principal office and the details of transfer of the place of business, and the entire registration certificate, the business registration certificate, and the details of electric charges, etc., on which the Plaintiff submitted the instant office that was not approved for use, and thus, it is difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s aforementioned assertion on the grounds that the purpose

⑤ Furthermore, considering the fact that the employees KimO reported the relocation of the place of business of the said company, on behalf of the Plaintiff, reported the change of the Plaintiff’s business registration from the general business operator to the tax-free business operator on behalf of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s trade name and the name of AAAAB lending and the name of the instant building title are similar to each other, AAA Holdings is engaged in the new house and sales business, real estate sale and lease business, etc., it is highly likely that AA Holdings will transfer the head office and the place of business to the instant office in order to take charge of the sales business of the instant building newly built by the Plaintiff, not to actually use and profit from the instant office.

3. Conclusion

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