Supreme Court Decision 2007Du18000 (No. 24, 2010)

202-2140

If a false debt is appropriated and repaid in another year, tax adjustment;

Unless it is revealed that the net assets have been excessively appropriated or deductible expenses in the course of including false debts, it shall be deemed that the net assets are excessively appropriated or deductible expenses, and the business year in which the assets account and the debt account have been repaid by means of the inclusion in gross income and deductible expenses, and the fraudulent debts have been reduced simultaneously, and thus, it shall not be subject to tax

1. The part concerning imposition of each corporate tax in the judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

A. On September 1, 2001, the part of the disposition by the Defendant on September 1, 2001 that exceeds the amount stated in the column of "justifiable tax amount" for each business year in the column of "pre-trial decision division" as stated in the corporate tax item shall be revoked.

B. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

2. Of the total litigation costs, 90% is borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder is borne by the Defendant.

1. Purport of claim

In the imposition of corporate tax and value-added tax on September 1, 200 L. 1, 200 L. 1, the part of the corporate tax and value-added tax stated in the separate sheet No. 1, 200 L. 1, 200 L. 3, 200 L. 1, 200 L. 1, 200 L. 1, 2000 L.

2. Purport of appeal

A. Plaintiff: The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the Plaintiff that ordered revocation shall be revoked. The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 425,280,50,50 among the disposition of KRW 17,914,70,70 of corporate tax of 1996 and KRW 6,63,929,710 of the disposition of imposition of KRW 237,133,399 of corporate tax of 1998 and KRW 6,63,306,280 of the disposition of imposition of KRW 637,429,429, KRW 12,475,934,380 of corporate tax of 1999 and KRW 414,837,235 of the disposition of imposition of KRW 2,529,280 of corporate tax of 198 (the portion of the disposition of imposition of KRW 12,475,934,380 of corporate tax of 199.

B. Defendant: The part against the Defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the Plaintiff’s claim corresponding to that part is dismissed.

3. Scope of the judgment of this court.

As stated in the purport of the claim, the court of first instance accepted part of the plaintiff's claim and rendered a decision revoking part of the corporate tax and value added tax against the plaintiff, respectively, on the ground that the plaintiff seeks revocation of the portion exceeding the stated amount in the "amount of corporate tax and value added tax" column of the "amount of corporate tax" column of the "amount of corporate tax and value added tax" column of the "amount of corporate tax" column of the "amount of corporate tax" column of the "amount of corporate tax" as stated in the separate sheet of claim

Therefore, even though the plaintiff and the defendant appealed each part of the plaintiff's appeal before the remand of the case, the court received some of the plaintiff's appeal and dismissed all the plaintiff's remaining appeal and the defendant's appeal. In other words, the Supreme Court received part of the plaintiff and the defendant's appeal as to the part of the corporate tax for the business year of 1996 through 1998 by the remanded judgment of the case, and the part of the plaintiff's appeal as to the corporate tax for the business year of 19999 by the plaintiff's appeal, and the defendant's appeal as to the corporate tax for the business year of 1999 by dismissal of the defendant's appeal as to the value-added tax, it is evident that the part against the plaintiff as to the disposition of imposition of corporate tax for the business year

Therefore, the scope of this Court's adjudication is limited to the part on the imposition of corporate tax for the business year 196, the business year 1997, the business year 198, and the part against the plaintiff on the imposition of corporate tax for the business year 199.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

(1) The court's explanation concerning this case shall include "721,60,00 won" of 2.4 x 15 x 2.0 x 97 x 40 x 97 x 94 x 97 x 40 x 97 x 94 x 97 x 40 x 16 x 97 x 46 x 97 x 47 x 5 x 97 x 46 x 97 x 47 x 47 x 97 x 47 x 94 x 50 x 97 x 197 x 47 x 47 x 49 x 505 x 194 x 505 x 196 x 47 x 194 x 505 x 197 ;

2. Parts to be dried;

A. From 14 up to 5 up to 16 pages 5

Entertainment expenses are in proportion to the size of business of an enterprise, and they should be strictly interpreted as expenses necessary for promoting smooth commercial activities and promoting corporate growth. If the other party is a person related to a business among the expenses paid by a corporation for a business and is promoting a smooth transactional relationship by promoting friendship with business persons through acts such as entertainment for the purpose of expenditure, etc., such expenses shall be deemed entertainment expenses under the Corporate Tax Act. However, unless otherwise, they shall not be readily concluded as entertainment expenses (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Du6559, Dec. 12, 2003; 2007Du26650, Jul. 10, 2008).

Considering the characteristics of the Plaintiff’s company that carries on newspaper publishing business, etc. as its object business, it is inevitable for reporters to gather news materials for the purpose of coverage of a case value as an article for the newspaper news business. The reporters met with reporters to gather news materials for the purpose of coverage at the time of the case, and there are cases where coverage materials for the purpose of coverage or for coverage for a long time, which are likely to continuously occur in the future. As such, if reporters drink with reporters or provide meals, it can be deemed that they bear expenses related to the Plaintiff’s business. It is difficult to readily conclude that the Plaintiff’s coverage business exceeds KRW 10,000,000 and KRW 10,000,000 and KRW 20,000,000,000 for the purpose of coverage expenses and entertainment expenses for 0,000,000,000 won for the purpose of coverage expenses for the purpose of collecting news materials for 10,000,000 won for the purpose of coverage expenses for 20,01,07,000.

Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is with merit only to cover KRW 147,470,05 in total, excluding the above KRW 20,670,00 ( KRW 44,554,402 in the business year 1996 + KRW 61,330,178 in the business year 197 + KRW 30,754,381 in the business year 198 + KRW 10,831,094 in the business year 1999).

B. Parts 8 to 11 of the surface of the Republic of Korea

If the other party is a person related to a business among the expenses paid by a corporation for the business and the purpose of expenditure is difficult to promote the smooth progress of transaction relations by performing activities such as entertainment, etc., it shall be deemed entertainment expenses. However, if the other party to the expenditure is many and unspecified persons and the purpose of expenditure is to stimulate the desire for purchase by improving the situation of the corporation, it shall be deemed entertainment expenses (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Du2990, Apr. 12, 2002).

According to the above facts, the original entertainment part paid to the delivery personnel for newspaper delivery bags, Belgium sets and delivery personnel for 80 weeks in a creative friendly relationship with the business personnel and should be deemed entertainment expenses with the aim of promoting smooth progress in trading. However, since the original entertainment part paid to the delivery personnel for newspaper delivery bags, Belgium sets and delivery personnel for 80 weeks in a creative friendly manner, it is difficult to view that it constitutes entertainment expenses for the Plaintiff’s 6th day of Sep. 30, 1996 as entertainment expenses for the Plaintiff’s visitors, and that it is difficult to view that it constituted 96th day of Nov. 30, 1996 as entertainment expenses for 196, 5,760,00 won, 190 won, 196.6th day of Dec. 4, 1996, 200 won, ginseng 6,813,200 won, 200 won, 200 won, and 9th day of the Plaintiff’s gift advertising expenses paid to a specific person.

Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is justified only for the sum of KRW 22,173,00 pertaining to the business year 196.

C. Parts 38, 14, 39, 14, 14

In addition, Article 16 subparag. 7 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5581 of Dec. 28, 1998; hereafter the same shall apply in this paragraph) and Article 130 subparag. 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15970 of Dec. 31, 1998; hereafter the same shall apply in this paragraph) provide that expenses incurred by acquiring and managing assets falling under Article 18-3 subparag. 2 of the former Corporate Tax Act shall not be included in the calculation of losses for the purpose of calculating the income amount of the relevant corporation. Article 18-3 subparag. 2 of the former Corporate Tax Act and Article 130 subparag. 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15970 of Dec. 31, 198) provide that the expenses related to the acquisition and management of assets falling under Article 18-3 subparag. 12 of the former Corporate Tax Act shall not be directly related to the business of the Plaintiff. 19.

(1) However, as long as the above car is appropriated in the Plaintiff’s asset account, it is the Plaintiff’s asset and the loss incurred from the disposal is not a cost unrelated to the business as it constitutes the maintenance expenses or management expenses of the above vehicle, and thus, the disposal loss amount should be included in deductible expenses as losses. Therefore, the non-deductible part is unlawful.

② Therefore, the part of the instant security guards, including the instant security guards, articles, and vehicle expenses, and the automobile tax for each of the instant automobiles, automobile insurance premium, and depreciation cost for each of the instant automobiles from 1996 to 1999, and the omission of assets for a late-man car should be excluded from deductible expenses. Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition on this part is legitimate. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is with merit only for the portion of KRW 6,120,349 on October 29, 199.

D. Parts 43, 20 to 44, 10

In full view of the above facts, the part of the ordinary expenses of this case against the plaintiff's customer is expenses paid without compensation in order to facilitate transactional relations by promoting friendship with his customer (this part is not included in deductible expenses and can not be disposed of as bonus for the representative because it is not related to business expenses). The part of the ordinary expenses for the plaintiff's employee is determined by the plaintiff's collective agreement, and the ordinary expenses for the ordinary expenses are also paid at a level similar to that of the ordinary expenses for the plaintiff's employee. Thus, even if the ordinary expenses of this case are excessive, the portion of the ordinary expenses of this case is about 00 won and 100 won which are related to the ordinary expenses of this case's employees' work and 100 won which are related to the ordinary expenses of this case's work and 100 won which are related to the ordinary expenses of this case's work and 100 won which are related to the ordinary expenses of this case's work and 100 won which are related to the ordinary expenses of this case's work.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is justified only for the above 300,000 won which should be included in deductible expenses, aside from the fact that the part of the ordinary expenses for the plaintiff's transaction partner was reduced to entertainment expenses and the equivalent amount was excluded from the bonus disposition for the representative.

E. According to the facts of the judgment of the first instance on the 47th page 16, the part of the "no grounds for the first instance on the 48th page" does not exist.

According to the above facts, the purchase expenses, such as gift proceeds, photographs, paintings, travel equipment, event expenses, first-aid medicine, and cosmetics, cannot be accurately identified, and there is no other evidence to prove that the specific details of the use of the purchased goods and the use of the expense are expenses incurred in relation to the Plaintiff’s business in light of the fact that the amount of the use is considerably high. Thus, the expenses paid in relation to the Plaintiff’s business cannot be deemed to be expenses paid. However, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s employees’ purchase expenses of disposable alcoholic beverages constitute welfare expenses related to the Plaintiff’s business, insofar as there is no evidence to deem that the amount exceeds the scope permitted by social norms.

Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is justified only for the sum of the purchase cost of alcoholic beverages for food 52,517,150 won.

F. From 56 up to 100 up to 61 up to 19

1) Parties’ assertion

A) The plaintiff's assertion

① At the time, the Plaintiff, the representative director of the Plaintiff Company, at the time of the Plaintiff’s purchase price of 45,100,000 won for the server vans purchased on March 27, 1992, paid the purchase price to the Plaintiff on behalf of the Plaintiff, and thereafter, even though the Plaintiff paid the Plaintiff a reasonable amount of money equivalent to the purchase price as a debt repayment, it is unlawful that the Defendant deemed the above purchase price as a processing liability and excluded the amount from deductible expenses.

② The Plaintiff’s act of returning KRW 179,830,862, and the balance of credit purchase amount, which was disposed of as a deposit because it was impossible to return to the actual owner of the advertising deposit, is deemed difficult to actually return or repay KRW 75,766,560, which was impossible to confirm the creditor, and then withdrawing the amount, and used it as the president’s incentive amount for the reporters belonging to the Plaintiff as the expenses for business affairs, such as bounty and bounty for the Plaintiff’s president, and as the expenses for business affairs, was unlawful.

③ The Plaintiff paid 570,080,000 won which had been properly disposed of as a deposit received from the representative director since the 1980s to the representative director, but was unlawful in the calculation of losses.

④ In order to impose a tax on the assumption of the benefits from the repayment of a debt, the Defendant must prove whether the benefits from the repayment of a debt exist or whether such benefits accrued therefrom belongs to the Plaintiff’s business year 1996 or 1998. The Defendant’s inclusion of the amount of a debt in deductible expenses without any proof in gross income is unlawful.

B) Defendant’s assertion

① Although the Plaintiff paid KRW 45,100,000 to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff made a false accounting of the amount equivalent to the said purchase price as the Plaintiff paid the said purchase price instead of the Bank of Korea, on the ground that the said purchase price was paid to the Bank of Korea.

(2) KRW 179,830,862, and KRW 75,766,560, which was leaked by the Plaintiff in disguise of the refund of advertising fees, shall be deemed as each processing debt, and shall be excluded from deductible expenses.

③ 570,080,000 won that the Plaintiff leaked to the Bank is a processed debt which was appropriated as a deposit without cash deposit on January 20, 1995 and is disposed of as if it were repaid, and the funds were leaked. As such, the expenses related thereto shall be excluded from deductible expenses.

2) Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(iii) the facts of recognition

A) On March 27, 1992, the Plaintiff purchased 45,100,000 won of the server line from Non-Party BB Co., Ltd. and received a tax invoice from the non-party BB, but paid the purchase price for the said van, which was processed by accounting and paid for a long-term debt, the Plaintiff, the representative director of the Plaintiff, paid the purchase price for the said Gohap around 17, 1996.

B) In the tax invoice column issued by BB commerce corporation, the number of purchasers in the tax invoice column of BB shall be indicated as “(State) Do-ri, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and the number of Do-ri, not “request” in the payment column, and there is no data that the BB would have made the payment on behalf of the BB company in lieu of the above bid price.

C) The Plaintiff could not confirm the subject of refund or repayment, and thus, the Plaintiff leaked the amount of KRW 179,830,862, which was recorded in the deposit account, which was the obligation account of the account books from the year 1994, as if the advertising fee was refunded from December 7, 1998 to December 11, 1998, and used it as light expenses or parking expenses of the advertising station.

D) In addition, the Plaintiff, on December 14, 1998, failed to verify the person liable for repayment, distributed and used the above amount by preparing a false revolving table under the name of "Gu*****, by attaching a false receipt to the person who is a processed object" as of December 14, 1998 for the obligation of KRW 75,766,560, which has been carried over as it was, since it was appropriated in the credit purchase account, which is the debt purchase account for the business year 1987, in the revolving account

E) Although most of the other credit purchase obligations, the extinctive prescription of which has been completed with a long-term debt, were appropriated as miscellaneous income, the Plaintiff did not appropriate the above credit purchase amount as the Plaintiff’s miscellaneous profit.

F) In the subdivision table of January 20, 1995, the plaintiff stated that the amount of KRW 570,080,000 paid in cash from the USA, which was the representative director at the time, was deposited in cash and lent the same amount to its officers and employees as advance payment. However, it is not confirmed whether the plaintiff received KRW 570,080,000 from the USA in the deposit statement of January 20, 1995.

G) On December 30, 1995, the Plaintiff offsets the short-term loans of 467,858,620 won for the short-term loans of 570,080,000 won for the representative director’s deposit, and adjusted the balance of the deposit account for the representative director’s deposit to 102,221,380 won for the short-term loans of 467,858,620 won for the representative director’s deposit, and returned the short-term loans to 467,85,620 won for the representative director’s deposit to 102,221,380 won for the representative director’s deposit.

H) After that, the plaintiff returned KRW 307,710,00 to the representative director on December 30, 1996, and deposited KRW 307,710,000 on January 16, 1997, and returned KRW 201,837,420 on December 31, 1997, and deposited KRW 201,837,420 on January 20, 1998, and each of the above deposits deposited KRW 201,837,420 on January 20, 1998, but no cash deposit or withdrawal was made during the above period.

I) On December 28, 1998, the Plaintiff received KRW 200 million from the representative director, and KRW 370,080,000 received from the representative director on December 29, 200, and deposited KRW 370,080,000 from the bank account, and deposited KRW 370,080,000 in cash, and KRW 358,925,850 in total received from the customer, respectively.

(j) In the Plaintiff’s statement of deposit received on December 31, 1994, the deposit received by the Bank of Korea is not separately indicated in the Plaintiff’s statement of deposit received, and the data such as the slips and the statement of classification that the Bank of Korea can prove the amount of deposit received by the Bank of Korea against the Plaintiff are currently nonexistent.

(k) In calculating the corporate tax reverted to the business year 1996, the Defendant considered the amount of KRW 45,100,000 for the above server line purchase price as a fraudulent debt and disposed of it as a bonus to the representative director. In calculating the corporate tax reverted to the business year 1998, the Defendant deemed the above non-verification deposit amount of KRW 179,830,862,862, the credit purchase amount of KRW 75,766,560, and the representative director’s deposit amount of KRW 570,80,000 as a fraudulent debt, and disposed of it as a bonus to the representative director.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence 19, Gap evidence 37-6, Gap evidence 79, Eul evidence 5-12-18, the purport of the whole pleadings

4) Determination

A) The tax authority has the burden of proving the legality of a taxation disposition on the income for a certain business year, and in a case where the legality of the taxation disposition on the income for a certain business year is disputed, the tax authority must prove the existence of the taxable income and the fact that the income is attributed to that business year. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the tax authority has reverted to the business year in which the taxable income was investigated and verified, regardless of the timing of determining the income subject to taxation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Du1826, Feb. 25, 2000; 2005Du11234, Jun. 28, 2007).

B) It is recognized that the Plaintiff’s obligation of KRW 179,830,862, and the obligation of KRW 75,766,560, which was included in the credit purchase account in the deposit account of the Plaintiff’s account book, cannot be refunded or repaid. As such, it is recognized that the Plaintiff did not include the interest on debt exemption equivalent to the credit purchase deposit and the credit purchase deposit in the gross income and accounts as if it was actually refunded or repaid, thereby bringing about the reduction of taxable income for the business year that should be included in the gross income from the above debt exemption income.

However, in order to impose the above unpaid deposit and credit purchase amount in addition to the gross income for the business year 1998, the profit from debt exemption should be presumed to be attributed to the pertinent business year. However, under the legal principle of the right and obligation settlement, it is difficult to deem that the profit from debt exemption due to the above unpaid deposit and the extinction of credit purchase amount belongs to 1998, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise. Moreover, the fact that the cash equivalent to the above unpaid deposit and credit purchase amount was leaked in the business year 1998 is reduced simultaneously with the cash in the assets account, and the income which forms the corporate tax base for the pertinent business year is not complete. Thus, the Defendant’s taxation of the above unpaid deposit and credit purchase amount in deductible expenses in the business year 1998 is unlawful.

C) In light of the aforementioned circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff paid KRW 45,100,000 to the Plaintiff’s own expenses, and there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff paid the purchase price on behalf of the Plaintiff, and that if the Plaintiff paid the purchase price, it shall be deemed that the Plaintiff was paid KRW 570,080,000 to the representative director’s deposit of this case. In addition, since there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff received KRW 570,000 from the U.S. director’s deposit of this case, the deposit of the representative director of this case shall be deemed to have been proven to have been false, and since there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff was actually paid the said amount from the U.S. director, it shall be deemed that the above representative director’s deposit of this case was a false debt.

However, the Plaintiff appropriated the total amount of KRW 45,100,00 for the business year 1992, and KRW 570,080 for the deposit obligation in the business year 195, and KRW 570,000 for each false account. As such, insofar as it was not revealed that the Plaintiff appropriated false assets for the business year 1992 and the business year 1995, the net assets of the 1992 business year and the 1995 business year were insufficient, which can be seen as the result of the Plaintiff’s omission of earnings or excessive appropriation of losses in the business year in which the false debts were calculated in the business year and the 1995 business year, and it could be reflected in the calculation of losses or losses for the pertinent business year (However, it seems that the period of exclusion already imposed has expired, and even if the Plaintiff had withdrawn the amount of income or losses under the pretext of false liabilities in the business year 199, it cannot be said that the amount of income or losses from the 19995 business year from the total amount of income or losses from the account.

D) Ultimately, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is with merit. Of course, the part of the Plaintiff’s allegation from No. 80 to No. 81 of the surface of No. 11 is with merit.

따라서, 원고가 1996 내지 1999 각 사업연도에 납부하여야 할 정당한 법인세액에 관하여 보건대, 이 사건 전심결과의 각 법인세 과세표준액에서, 취재비 합계 147,470,055원(1996 사업연도 44,554,402원 + 1997 사업연도 61,330,178원 + 1998 사업연도 30,754,381원 + 1999 사업연도 10,831,094원), 내방객 선물비 합계 22,173,000원(1996 사업연도), 직원 경조비 300,000원(1996 사업연도), 회식용 주류구입비 합계 52,517,150원 (1996 사업연도 8,232,000원 + 1997 사업연도 15,059,340원 + 1998 사업연도 13,187,010원 + 1999 사업연도 16,038,800원), 회의비 중 별지 2. 손금산입 회의비 기재와 같이 다과 또는 음료를 제공하는 데에 소요된 비용 1,082,695원(1996 사업연도 558,030원 + 1997 사업연도 203,145원 + 1998 사업연도 321,520원), 이 사건 부외 자금 수입이자 242,752,943원(1996 사업연도), 이 사건 업무무관비용 중 아카디아 차량 처분손실비 6,120,349원(1999 사업연도), 이 사건 업무무관비용 중 별지 6. 손금산입 해외여비 기 재 부분 210,971,048원(1996 사업연도 93,112,160원 + 1997 사업 연도 63,356,940원 + 1998 사업연도 21,329,693원 + 1999 사업연도 33,172,255원), 해외여비 중 1997. 1. 7. 지출되었다가 1997. 1. 13. 취소되어 원고가 손금에 계상조차 하지 않았음에도 피고가 손금불산입한 20,000,000원(1997 사업연도), 이 사건 엽무무관비용 중 별지 8. 손금산입 기타 업무무관경비 기재 부분 287,076,765원(1996 사업연도 15,484,800원 + 1997 사업연도 86,999,094원 + 1998 사업 연도 91,741,310원 + 1999 사업 연도 92,851,561원), 이 사건 업무무관비용의 채무변제금액으로 미확인예금 179,830,862원, 외상매입금 75,766,560원, 외상매입금 45,100,000원 및 예수금 570,080,000원의 합계액 870,777,422원(1996 사업연도 45,100,000원 + 1998 사업연도 825,677,422원)을 각 손금산입하고, 이 사건 무상제공 광고비 부당행위계산 부인액 338,400,000원 중 164,459,796원을 초과하여 익금산입된 부분 173,940,204원(1998 사업연도 99,750,412원 + 1999 사업연도 74,189,792원)을 익금산입에서 제외하는 것으로 경정하면(이 사건 기밀비 전부와 이 사건 경조비 중 별지 5. 접대비 산입 경조비 기재 부분 50,500,000원을 각 접대비에 산입하되 접대비 한도를 초과하여 손금에는 산입할 수 없으나 소득처분에는 반영될 수 있다), 결국 1996 내지 1999 각 사업연도 귀속 법인세의 정당한 세액은 아래와 같은 계산한 결과 별지 1.의 가. 법인세의 각 "정당한 세액"란의 "결정세액"이 된다.

(1) Corporate tax for the business year 1996

<1> <14,512,068,865 won

0

<1> <17,695,525,467>

0

(2) Corporate tax for the business year 1997

<6,594,784,078>

0

<6,594,784,078>

(3) Corporate tax for the business year 1998

<2,806,372,930>

0

<2,250,132,997>

0

(4) Corporate tax for the business year 199.

<1> <12,755,691,432>

0

<1> <12,410,637,310>

0

3. Conclusion

Therefore, each part of the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. The decision of the court of first instance concerning the imposition of each corporate tax is delivered with the decision of the court of first instance to revise the part concerning the imposition of each corporate tax as above and it is so decided as per Disposition.