Tax Tribunal 2014Seoul Northern1516 (26 June 2014)

Whether the processing purchase or omission of a corporation may be deemed to have been reverted to the representative director in cases where it is unclear that the person to whom it belongs has been discharged from the corporation.

The bonus disposal shall be deemed to have been reverted to the representative director because the profit of the corporation equivalent to the omission in the processing purchase or sale of the corporation was leaked out, other than the company, and it is legitimate.

Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act, Article 106 of the Enforcement Decree of Income Disposition

2014Guhap6557 Notice of Change in Amount of Income

AA Trade (States)

Samsung Head of Samsung Tax Office

on December 22, 2015

December 2, 2016

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

On November 1, 2013, the Defendant issued a notice of change in the amount of income for the business year 2008 (income amount: 115,164,471 won), notification of change in the amount of income for the business year 2009 (income amount: 115,164,471 won), notification of change in the amount of income for the business year 2010 (income amount: 120,211,931 won), notification of change in the amount of income for the business year 2011 (income amount: 162,037,804 won), notification of change in the amount of income for the business year 2012 (income amount: 136,123,503 won) and notification of change in the amount of income for the business year 2012.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff was established on December 27, 1982 and mainly for the purpose of manufacturing and selling textile products.

Cymnasel 219-1 located in Simsan-dong 219-1, Gamsan-dong, 1999, a business fixed asset after 199

Some (hereinafter referred to as "the building of this case") operate a business leasing part of the building of this case.

B. The Plaintiff’s electricity and urban gas from 2008 to 2012

549,154,901 won (hereinafter referred to as "management expenses of this case"), such as fees and expenses related to the repair of parking facilities, etc.

The Korea Electric Power Corporation collected from the lessee of the building and paid the management fee in this case.

The sales amount equivalent to the management expenses of this case shall be included in the expenses without reporting, and 208 business.

From the year of 2012, corporate tax was reported and paid.

C. On May 25, 2008, the Plaintiff: ○○○○○ Limited Company (hereinafter “○○○○○”) (hereinafter “○○○○○ Berter”).

Amount equivalent to KRW 21,100,000 (including value-added tax) shall be deemed to have been purchased and payable.

On June 10, 2008, the account was accounted for as payment in cash at ○○○○ Bab, an amount equivalent to the above amount. In addition, on November 21, 201, the Plaintiff pretended to have purchased 5,000,000 won from ○○ ○○ ○○ Bab from ○○ Bab on the part of ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○ (including value-added tax) and included it in the accounts payable, and on July 27, 2012, accounts was accounted for as payment in cash equivalent to the above amount (hereinafter referred to as “the instant processed purchase amount”).

D. When the Plaintiff reported and paid corporate tax for the business year 2012, the Plaintiff did not report the instant rent of KRW 17,200,000 (hereinafter “instant rent”) as the sales amount.

E. On November 1, 2013, the Defendant included the instant management expenses, the instant processing purchase amount, and the instant rent in gross income, and notified the Plaintiff of the tax base and the tax amount of the corporate tax from 2008 to 2012, respectively. Meanwhile, the Defendant deemed that the amount included in gross income was out of the company as seen above, disposed of as bonus to ○○○, the representative director of the Plaintiff, as indicated below, and notified the Plaintiff of each change in the income amount (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”).

(unit: Won)

Tax year

Management Expenses

Amount of processed purchase

Rent

Total

Amount of bonus disposal

208

87,817,192

21,100,000

108,917,192

108,917,192

209

15,164,471

15,164,471

15,164,471

2010

120,211,931

120,211,931

120,211,931

2011

107,037,804

5,00000

162,037,804

162,037,804

2012

18,923,503

17,200,000

136,123,503

136,123,503

Total

549,154,901

76,100,000

17,200,000

642,454,901

642,454,901

F. The Plaintiff filed an objection with the head of Samsung Tax Office on December 12, 2013, against the disposition of the increase in corporate tax for the business year 2008, the disposition of the increase in corporate tax for the business year 201, the disposition of the increase in corporate tax for the business year 201, and the respective dispositions of the instant case, but the head of Samsung Tax Office dismissed the objection on January 15, 2014. The Plaintiff appealed with the Tax Tribunal on March 10, 2014. However, the Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal on June 26, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (including relevant numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

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

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff, on the other hand, accounts for the management expenses of this case and the processed purchase amount of this case as payment in cash for processing, and accounts for the equivalent amount of cash expenditure without the inflow of cash. Since the above provisional receipts were not leaked as a nominal debt, the entire internal reserve was in violation of Article 106 (1) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, each disposition of this case was unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Where a corporation fails to record its sales in the account book despite a fact of sales or appropriates the cost of processing in the account book, barring any special circumstance, it shall be deemed that the profit of the corporation equivalent to the total amount omitted sales or processed cost was leaked out, barring special circumstances. In such a case, the special circumstance suggesting that the omission of sales or processing cost was not leaked out to the representative director out of the company need to be proved by the corporation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Du16347, Dec. 24, 199; 2001Du2560, Dec. 6, 2002). Furthermore, even if a corporation’s cash, which is the other party to the account, was stored in the account book, which is a temporary account with no finalized amount of sales, was stored in the account book with a short-term transaction from the account book, and thus, it shall be deemed that there was no change in the net assets from the account book with a view to 20th representative director.

2) The Plaintiff failed to enter the sales in the account book despite the fact of sales of the instant management fee and the instant rent, and included the processed purchase amount in the account book. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff’s profits equivalent to the sum of the instant management fee, the instant rent, and the instant processed purchase amount (hereinafter “the aggregate”) shall be deemed to have been leaked out of the company, and there is a need to prove that the instant sum was not leaked out of the company.

3) However, it is insufficient to acknowledge that there are special circumstances to deem that the aggregate amount of this case does not have been leaked to the private company only with the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 6 through 9 (including the relevant number). Rather, the following circumstances, i.e., the amount appropriated in the provisional deposit account from 2010 to 2012 each of the management expenses of this case, which are less than the aggregate amount of the processed purchase amount of this case generated in the business year 2011 or the rent of this case, and 208 and the management expenses of this case were generated in the unit of KRW 100,000,000,000,000 won were appropriated in the account of KRW 30,000,000,000,000 won were appropriated in the account of KRW 40,000,000,000,000 won were appropriated in the account for each business year from 2010 to 203,034,00.

4) Therefore, the total sum of the instant case was leaked out of the company, and it is deemed that it was reverted to ○○○, the representative director of the Plaintiff, as the person to whom it belongs is unclear. Thus, each of the instant dispositions, which made the total sum of the instant cases as bonus disposal, is lawful.

3. Conclusion

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

section 3.

A