Whether taxation with the amount of sales revenue originally determined is contrary to the principle of substantial taxation

It is legitimate to impose tax on the sales revenue amount as the sales revenue amount determined at the first time because the presented evidence alone cannot be recognized as a different amount.

Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Defendant ○○ Head of the tax office’s imposition of KRW 460,375,629 on global income for the year 2004 by the Plaintiff on June 12, 2006 and the imposition of KRW 15,712,140 on February 5, 2006 by the Defendant △△ Head of the tax office on the Plaintiff on June 5, 2006, respectively, shall be revoked.

1. Details of the instant disposition

The following facts shall not be disputed between the parties, or may be admitted by entry in the evidence No. 3-2:

(1) On September 20, 2004, the Plaintiff and ○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff, etc.”) newly constructed a commercial building on the ground of the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, a business proprietor who newly constructed and sold a building with the trade name of ○○○ Development, and newly built a commercial building on the 4th and 11th floor above the ground (hereinafter referred to as “instant commercial building”).

(2) The Plaintiff, etc. sold units of Nos. 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, and 302 of the first floor among the above buildings (hereinafter “sale of units”). The Plaintiff, etc. reported the sales amount of KRW 2,505,320,00, the sales amount of KRW 2,413,776,280, the sales amount of KRW 91,543,720, and the sales amount of KRW 91,543,720, the global income tax for the year 2004 and the value-added tax for the second quarter of 204.

(3) However, as a result of the tax investigation conducted by the Defendants against the Plaintiff, etc., the actual sales revenue amount of the instant sales in lots was found to constitute a total of 4,56,693,00 as follows.

Sale of goods

Date of contract

Seller

Buyer

Sale price;

101

February 6, 2003

○○

○ ○

659,230,000 won

102 HS Heading

November 26, 2002

“”

○ Kim

453,024,00 won

103 No. 103

April 30, 2003

“”

Kim △△△

975,866,00 won

104 No. 104

June 9, 2003

“”

Gyeong Kim

1,357,50,000 won

105

March 4, 2003

“”

Justices Kim Shin-▽

177,000,000 won

106 No. 106

April 11, 2003

“”

Maximum △△△

30,800,000 won

107 No. 107

January 18, 2003

“”

○○

402,490,000 won

302

October 17, 2003

“”

○ ○

314,640,00 won

(4) Accordingly, the Defendants added the total amount of 2,051,373,00 won (4,556,693,000 won - 2,505,320,000 won) that was underreported by the Plaintiff, etc. to the total amount of income. Defendant ○○ Head of the tax office, on June 12, 2006, 770,548,570 won, integrated income tax for the year 2004, and Defendant △△ Head of the tax office, on June 5, 2006, increased the value-added tax for the second period of 2,004 to the Plaintiff as 15,712,140 won (hereinafter referred to as “the first disposition”).

(5) On July 6, 2006, the Plaintiff filed a request for a trial with the National Tax Tribunal. On February 8, 2007, the Director of the National Tax Tribunal made a partial decision of acceptance that the amount of tax base and the amount of tax should be corrected by 3,241,800 won, with the sales cost corresponding to the sales cost of 4,56,693,000 won.

(6) Accordingly, on March 30, 2007, the head of the Defendant ○○ Tax Office issued a correction and notice by reducing the above global income tax amount of KRW 770,548,570 to KRW 460,375,629 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On November 15, 2002, the Plaintiff sold 101, 102, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, and 107 (hereinafter “the first floor shop of this case”) to 3,537,00,000 won, and 4,35,910,000 [the total amount of the sales revenue of this case 4,56,693,00 won - the sales revenue of this case 200,783,00 won (the sales contract of this case 314,640,640,000 won) to the △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△○, and the amount of the sales revenue of this case - the above 3001,30005,70005,1000.

B. Determination

(1) However, considering whether the Plaintiff, etc. sold the first floor of this case to △△△△△△△△ in total at KRW 3,537,00,00,00, the following facts are acknowledged: (a) the Plaintiff’s testimony of ○○○ and ○○○○, without the witness, as stated in the evidence No. 3-1 and No. 5-1 and No. 5-5; (b) the Plaintiff, in the course of the instant tax investigation, stated that the Plaintiff did not know at all of △△△△△△△△ in the instant case; (c) the Plaintiff purchased the first floor of this case or stated that △△△△△△△ did not have any work related to the sale; (d) the seller, ○○○ and △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△, without the evidence No. 101 and evidence No. 6, 10.

(2) Rather, comprehensively taking account of the circumstances described in the above Paragraph (1) and Nos. 3-2, the Plaintiff et al. sold the instant first floor and Nos. 4,556,693,00 won in total to the purchaser such as the largest ○○, etc., as stated in the above Paragraph (1)(c).

(3) Therefore, the instant disposition that deemed the Plaintiff’s sales revenue amount as KRW 4,556,693,00 is lawful since it does not violate the principle of substantial taxation, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion disputing this is not acceptable.

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.