Whether the automobile maintenance expenses, etc. in this case are expenses unrelated to business

The amount to be included in the necessary expenses, as the expenses for vehicle maintenance, the personnel expenses for drivers, and the legal advice fees alleged by the Plaintiff are generally accepted, or the goods EH supplied for the purpose of being used or used by an entrepreneur for his/her own business is insufficient to view it as an input tax amount deducted from the output tax amount.

Article 27 (Calculation of Necessary Expenses for Business Income)

2017Guhap8909 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing global income tax, etc.

AA

a) the Director of the Tax Office

July 20, 2018

September 14, 2018

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 imposition of global income tax (including additional taxes), xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, 2012, which reverts to the Plaintiff on May 10, 2017, including global income tax (including additional taxes), 2011, 2017, 2012, 1, 2012, 2012, 200, 2013, 2013, 1, 2013, 2013, 2,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a personal entrepreneur who carries on real estate rental in the name of "BB enterprise" in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

B. B. B. Director of the Regional Tax Office conducted an integrated personal taxation investigation against the Plaintiff from February 9, 2017 to May 27, 2017, and the results of the investigation are as follows.

The director of the △△△ Regional Tax Office added the amount of interest income received from ccroca and friendly friendship, and added it to the amount of interest income received from croca, (2) does not include personnel expenses, vehicle maintenance expenses, taxes and public charges, payment fees, etc. in necessary expenses, and (3) considers payment fees deducted as the input tax amount of value-added tax, vehicle maintenance expenses, and so forth to notify

C. Accordingly, on May 10, 2017, the Defendant imposed both the Plaintiff, global income tax (including additional tax)xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, global income tax (including additional tax), on June 28, 2017, on global income tax (including additional tax), on global income tax (including additional tax), on January 2012, 2012, global income tax (including additional tax), on global income tax (including additional tax), on global income tax (including additional tax), on global income tax) on 2013, on global income tax (including additional tax), on 1, 2013, on 2013, global income tax (including additional tax), on global income tax (including additional tax), on global income tax (including additional tax), on global income for 2014, on global income tax (including additional tax) on global income for 2014, and on global income tax (including additional tax) on global income for 2015) on global income (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 6 evidence, Eul 1 to 8 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

1) As the Plaintiff used a vehicle for business purposes, the expenses for maintaining the vehicle (lease) and the personnel expenses of drivers should be included in the necessary expenses.

2 u300) The plaintiff concludes a legal advice agreement and pays advisory fees accordingly, and receives legal advice, etc. related to commercial lease, so legal advice expenses shall be included in necessary expenses.

B. Determination

1) Article 27(1) of the Income Tax Act provides that "the amount to be included in necessary expenses when calculating business income shall be the sum of expenses corresponding to the total amount of income in the pertinent taxable period and which is generally accepted as ordinary expenses." Here, "generally accepted expenses" refers to expenses that are deemed to have been disbursed under the same situation by other business operators engaged in the same kind of business as the person liable for tax payment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du12422, Nov. 12, 2009).

Meanwhile, Article 38(1)1 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that “The input tax amount deducted from the sales tax amount refers to the value-added tax amount on the goods or services supplied by an entrepreneur for the purpose of using or using them for his/her own business.” An input tax amount on an unrelated disbursement may not be deducted from the output tax amount (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du12552, Jul. 26, 2012).

2) According to the purport of entry of the evidence and the entire purport of the pleading set forth in the evidence set forth in subparagraph 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10 to 13, and 15, the following facts may be recognized:

A) Seoul Gangnam-gu Seoul District Building (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”) is the size of 2nd underground and 7th ground. In around 2011 and 2015, underground floors were parking lots, and 1st and 5th above ground were used in real estate rental business, and 6th and 7th below the Plaintiff’s residence.

B) The Plaintiff employed eight each in 201, 2012, 6, 2013, 2014, and 2015. The Plaintiff, among them, paid x members as wages in the year 201 through 2014, and x members in the year 2015. The Plaintiff’s real estate rental income amount, wage amount, etc. from around 2011 to 2015 are as follows.

C) The details of the leased vehicle between 2011 and 2015 are as follows.

D) On April 4, 2017,CC drafted a confirmation document stating that “BB enterprise’s service period (from 2011 to 2015) has carried out the personal business of the Plaintiff and D, irrespective of the business of BB enterprise,” and that “it has delivered DD’s goods at the Plaintiff’s direction.”

E) On March 19, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with EE and “Contract Period: from March 25, 2012 to March 24, 2013; the basic remuneration: A contract with a legal adviser of x won (payment on March 25, 201) for the calculation and claim of advisory fees from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2012; and the said contract was terminated.

The Plaintiff, from March 2012 to December 2012, included the sum of advisory fees to the account of commission fees (=x won x ten months x ten months) as necessary expenses.

3) In full view of the following facts and circumstances recognized by the witnessCC’s testimony and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is insufficient to view the Plaintiff’s partial testimony as an input tax amount deducted from the output tax amount as an input tax amount, which is an amount to be included in necessary expenses, or an goods or service supplied by an entrepreneur for the purpose of using or using his/her own business, as an ordinary amount generally accepted by the Plaintiff, or an input tax amount deducted from the output tax amount, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise. The Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be accepted.

A) In general, since the building lease business is mostly engaged in the management of the building, such as guard, parking, and cleaning, it is difficult to recognize that the driver’s wage and the vehicle maintenance fee paid by the business operator operating the building lease business are necessary expenses or input tax having business relevance, barring any special circumstance.

The Plaintiff employed five or six drivers for the management of the instant building, other thanCC, as a driver, and there seems to be no reason to deem that there is a need for a driver to manage the instant building in addition to the employees employed as such.

In addition, the Plaintiff is five vehicles in total, and the value of the leased vehicle reaches approximately x members to x members, and monthly rent is a high-class vehicle from approximately x members to x members. Even if a vehicle is used for the management of the instant building, such high-class vehicle is difficult to view it as ordinary.

B) It is difficult to view that the legal consultation, etc. is needed on a regular basis in light of the business size (from the first floor to the fifth floor of the building), revenue (from the xx in a year), revenue (from the xx), etc. of the B company.

In addition, there was no legal dispute concerning the management of the building of this case or there was no evidence to recognize that the plaintiff was given legal advice.

C) The witnessCC stated to the effect that “the Plaintiff was operating a vehicle as an individual business of the Plaintiff and JeongF, but most of it was driving the vehicle for the purpose of the BB business, such as building management work. Although the Plaintiff did not directly see that the Plaintiff had legal counsel with the attorney, there was a legal problem at the time, and there was a case for consultation with the attorney.”

However, the witnessCC was only driven by the plaintiff or partyF for the purpose of working hours. The plaintiff went to the Dong office, bank, real estate, and lawyer office, and went to the hospital when his body was good. The plaintiff stated at the plaintiff's order that "I have delivered D's articles, etc.", and the plaintiff also prepared a confirmation document such as the above 2).

3. Conclusion

The claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.