Time of attribution of income;

It is difficult for the tax authority to determine whether the taxable income subject to taxation belongs to any business year as a result of the continuous concealment of the income for several business years, and to view that the taxable income belongs to the business year during which the tax authority is investigating the income is not allowed under the principle of no taxation without

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 204,697,290 against the Plaintiff on January 16, 1995 shall be revoked. 2. The litigation cost shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. Details of the instant disposition;

. According to the Plaintiff’s tax base of KRW 37,893,346, 197 on the current balance sheet 31 December 31, 1981; KRW 649,17,194; KRW 724,194, 194; and KRW 646,486,194, 94; and KRW 97.3,97.3, 196, 97.3, 197, 196.3, 197, 196.3, 197, 196.3, 197, 196.3, 196, 197, 196.3, 196, 197, 196.3, 194, 197, 197, 196.3, 194, 196.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

The plaintiff asserts that the tax disposition of this case on the premise that the above provisional income is confirmed in the business year of 1993 is illegal, because it is not only a processed debt and the profit from debt exemption, but also a continuous carried over by the plaintiff after its establishment in 1981, and it is not confirmed in the business year of 1993. Accordingly, the defendant asserts that the tax disposition of this case is unlawful. Accordingly, under the current Corporate Tax Act under the current Corporate Tax Act where the taxpayer continues to conceal the income subject to taxation over several business years as a result of the continuous concealment of the income which is subject to taxation, it is difficult to determine which business year, the tax authority should impose corporate tax by adding it to the income of the business year in which the taxpayer investigated and confirmed the taxable income and the tax base of the plaintiff was legitimate, since the defendant calculated the above provisional income as the income of the business year of 193.

Article 9 (1) of the Corporate Tax Act provides that the income of a domestic corporation for each business year shall be the amount calculated by deducting the total amount of deductible expenses which belong or comes to fall under the business year from the total amount of gross income which belongs or comes to fall under the business year. Paragraph (2) provides that "gross income" shall mean the amount of profits accruing from transactions that increase the net assets of the corporation except as provided for in the capital or financing and investment, and Article 17 (1) of the Corporate Tax Act provides that the business year to which the taxable income and deductible expenses of the domestic corporation belong shall be the business year to which the date on which the taxable income and deductible expenses are determined are determined shall be the business year to which the taxable year belong." This provision provides that "The Corporate Tax Act provides that the method of determining the taxable income of the corporation which is the object of taxation of the corporate tax shall be for the efficient and accurate calculation for each taxable year, and that the taxable income and deductible expenses which are the basis of the corporate tax under the Corporate Tax Act shall be included in the calculation of the tax rate for the business year to which would not be included in the tax rate.

On the other hand, the burden of proof on the legality of a taxation disposition is against the tax authority. If the legality of a taxation disposition on the income in a business year is disputed, the tax authority must prove that there is a taxable income and that the income belongs to the business year. Thus, even if the existence of a taxable income is recognized, if it is not recognized that the income belongs to the business year, the taxation disposition cannot be exempted. As the defendant's assertion, it is difficult for the tax authority to determine the income as the result of the continuous concealment of the income which is subject to taxation over a business year, it is difficult for the taxpayer to determine which business year belongs to, and thus, it cannot be permitted under the principle of no taxation without law.

Therefore, in order for the instant disposition to be lawful, it should be proved that the said provisional collection is a processed debt or a non-debted debt exemption profit, and that the processing debt or the profit from the exemption of debt has become final and conclusive in the business year 193 of the Plaintiff.

However, the entries in Eul evidence 2 (Statement) and Eul evidence 3 (Sheet sheet) are not sufficient to recognize that the above provisional receipts are processed liabilities or are profits from debt exemption, and furthermore, it is not sufficient to recognize that the above provisional receipts were finalized in the plaintiff's business year of 1993. Rather, as seen above, it cannot be deemed that the whole provisional receipts as of December 31, 1993 were finalized in the plaintiff's business year of 1993 (the above provisional receipts can have the portions finalized in the business year of 1993, but the defendant did not specify that part).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the disposition of this case on the premise that the above provisional payment is a processed debt established in the business year 1993 or a debt exemption profit is illegal. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking its revocation is justified, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the court below.

December 5, 1997