National Tax Service Review Income 2011-015 ( December 23, 2011)

It is recognized that the corporation has actually borrowed the provisional payment because it has been employed for a long time as the auditor of the corporation, and is registered as the person to whom the provisional payment statement belongs.

In light of the fact that the plaintiff was registered as an auditor and affixed a seal to the meeting minutes of the board of directors, that the corporation received earned income for a long time in the relevant corporation, and that the person to whom the provisional payment was paid is indicated as the plaintiff in the statement of provisional payment submitted at the time of corporate tax, etc., the plaintiff is deemed to have borrowed the provisional payment, etc. of this case

2012Guhap1186 (11, 2012.09)

AAA

Head of the High Tax Office

August 21, 2012

September 11, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 000 in 2007, and KRW 000 in 2008 and KRW 000 in 200 in 2009 against the Plaintiff on July 1, 201 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 12, 1982, BB leisure Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “B leisure”) was established for the purpose of newly building and selling houses, and was closed on June 18, 2009, and the Plaintiff was registered as an auditor in the corporate register of BB leisure from February 26, 2003.

B. On March 1, 201, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office, and the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office conducted a tax investigation for the year 2007 - 2009 of the BB leisure, and the BB leisure from time to time lent the amount to the auditor during the pertinent business year to verify that the unpaid principal balance is KRW 000 and the recognized interest rate is KRW 000 (hereinafter referred to as “the instant provisional payment”). On March 1, 201, it was disposed of as a bonus to the Plaintiff and notified the changes in the amount of income, and the said taxation data was also notified to the Defendant, the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s domicile.

C. Accordingly, on July 1, 201, the Defendant imposed on the Plaintiff a disposition imposing global income tax of KRW 000 for the year 2007, KRW 000 for the year 2008, and KRW 000 for the year 2009 (hereinafter “the first disposition”).

D. Since then, in the Plaintiff’s request for examination against the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, the Plaintiff from July 2007 to early 2008 patrolmen.

In addition, the Geumcheon-gu Seoul OCC 00 OCC 200 operated a soup cafeteria as a partnership business, and the defendant corrected and notified the plaintiff about the total amount of KRW 000 for the global income tax of KRW 2007, and KRW 000 for the year 2008 and KRW 000 for the year 2009, calculated by reducing the total amount of income of the cCC 2000 for the cCC 200.

[Ground of Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 2, and the whole purport of the pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case by the defendant is unlawful for the following reasons and should be revoked.

(1) The Plaintiff was merely an audit under the name of BB leisure, and was appointed as an actual audit, and borrowed the instant provisional payment, etc. from the Plaintiff’s husband is NowonG, and the Plaintiff only operated the Dozers and CCC cafeteria cafeteria as a partner during the instant taxation period.

(2) Even if the Plaintiff borrowed the instant provisional payment, etc., it is merely a claim to be offset against the Plaintiff’s wages and retirement allowances that the Plaintiff did not receive from BB leisure.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

(1) As to the Plaintiff’s first argument

According to each of the statements and arguments in Eul, Eul evidence 5-1 through 3, Eul evidence 6-1 through 10, Eul evidence 7-1 through 7, and Eul evidence 8-1 through 4, and Eul evidence 8-1 through 4, and ① as seen earlier, the plaintiff has not only been registered as the auditor of BB leisure from February 26, 2003, but also the minutes of the board of directors held 10 times from October 15, 2003 to February 28, 2008 ( evidence 6-1 to 10) are written as the plaintiff attended the board of directors of BB leisure and affixed and sealed by the plaintiff as the auditor.

In fact, (B) the Plaintiff’s inquiry into the Plaintiff’s earned income data through the integrated national tax computer network (A evidence 7-1 to 7) made earned income of 000 won in total from BB leisure from 2002 to 2008, and the Plaintiff reported that it was global income, and (3) the Plaintiff submitted a corporate tax return at the time of 2006 - 2006 - the confirmation of provisional payments in the business year 2007 and the confirmation statement (A evidence 5-1 to 3) are recognized, and the Plaintiff could sufficiently confirm that the provisional payments in this case were actually made by the Plaintiff while working as the auditor in BB leisure, and it is contrary to the above evidence, and there is no other reason for the Plaintiff’s assertion to the effect that the provisional payments in this case were made in the name of BB and B, and there is no other reason for the Plaintiff’s assertion to the effect that the aforementioned provisional payments in this case were made in the name of BB.

(2) As to the second argument of the Plaintiff

In line with the plaintiff's assertion that there are wages and retirement allowances that the plaintiff did not receive from BB, each statement of Nos. 3-1 and 2 is difficult to believe that it is all sorts of ships, and each statement of Nos. 6 through 8 is insufficient to acknowledge the plaintiff's assertion, and there is no evidence to support it. Rather, according to the overall purport of the statement and arguments of Nos. 9-2 and No. 10, and No. 1007-2007-2008 - No. 1 and No. 2 of BB leisure, there is no evidence to support the plaintiff's assertion that there is no unpaid salary, and No. 2B leisure paid to the plaintiff from Sep. 2007 to Sep. 2008, it is confirmed that the plaintiff was paid KRW 00 million each month from Sep. 2007 to Sep. 2008.

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.