early 2011west 2576 ( October 26, 2011)

It shall not be deemed that the key service fee was actually spent as necessary expenses.

The fact that the key service fee was spent as necessary expenses is favorable to the plaintiffs, who are liable for tax payment, and their basic facts are located in the sphere of the plaintiffs' control, so the burden of proof is against the plaintiffs, so it is insufficient to recognize that the key service fee was spent as necessary expenses only

Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Article 27 of the Income Tax Act

2011Revocation of disposition of revocation of imposition of value-added tax, individual consumption tax, global income tax and local income tax

United States of America and one other

2. One other than the head of the Dong Tax Office

March 30, 2012

April 20, 2012

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The imposition of KRW 00 on May 11, 201 by the head of the tax office of Dongwon on the plaintiffs on the first quarter of 2009, KRW 000 on the second quarter of 2009, KRW 000 on the first quarter of 2010, KRW 000 on the second quarter of 2010, KRW 000 on the second quarter of 200, individual consumption tax for April 2009, KRW 000 on the education tax for April 2009, and KRW 000 on the education tax for April 1, 2009, by the former head of the tax office on May 1, 201, each disposition of KRW 00 on the global income tax for 200 on the part of 209, and KRW 00 on the global income tax for 200 on May 1, 201.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 16, 2009, the registration of the business in the name of the JungCC was completed on February 16, 2009 with respect to the "DDR" (hereinafter "the workplace of this case") located on the third floor of the building listed in the attached Table 1 list (hereinafter "the building of this case"). The plaintiffs are the parents of the JungCC.

B. Around Apr. 1, 2011, the director of the tax office of the Dongwon Tax conducted a global income tax investigation with the period of investigation from Jan. 1, 2009 to Dec. 31, 2009. As a result, the head of the tax office of the Dongwon Tax determined that the actual business operator of the workplace of this case is the Plaintiffs, who are not regularCC, and the amount of KRW 000, which is counted in the taxable period of value-added tax for the first term of January 2009 and KRW 000, which is counted in the taxable period of value-added tax for the second term of February 2009 (hereinafter “instant service charges”).

C. As a result of the above investigation, on May 11, 201, the head of the tax office of the Dongwon imposed and notified each of the Plaintiffs of KRW 000 of the value-added tax for the first term of 2009, KRW 000 of the value-added tax for the second term of 2009, KRW 000 of the value-added tax for the first term of 2010, KRW 000 of the value-added tax for the second term of 2010, KRW 000 of the individual consumption tax for April 2009, and KRW 00 of the education tax for April 209.

D. Meanwhile, on May 1, 2011, the Defendant Guro Tax Director notified of the aforementioned investigation results from the Head of the Dongwon Tax Office, imposed global income tax of KRW 000 on May 1, 201, and KRW 000,000, global income tax for the year 2009, respectively, on the Plaintiff Jeong Jong-A and KRW 000, global income tax for the year 2009.

E. On July 201, the Plaintiffs appealed to each of the dispositions in paragraphs (c) and (d) above (hereinafter collectively referred to as “each of the dispositions in this case”) and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal. However, the Tax Tribunal dismissed the said appeal on September 30, 201.

[Basis] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-5, Gap evidence 1-7 through 11, Gap evidence 2-1, 3-1, Eul evidence 3-1, Eul evidence 4-11, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

1) On January 2009, Jung-CC, the plaintiffs, established the instant workplace by aggregating the money deposited in ordinary accounts and loans, and operated it for a period of 20 months and entered the Gun on August 10, 2010. The plaintiffs are merely a parent of Jung-CC, who operates the instant workplace instead of the instant workplace. The actual business operator of the instant workplace is Jung-CC. Accordingly, each of the instant dispositions that the plaintiffs deemed to be the actual business operator of the instant workplace is unlawful.

2) The plaintiffs withdraw cash from the head of JungCC’s passbook that was managed in a usual manner, or from January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2009 to December 31, 2009 due to the plaintiffs’ rental fees, etc.

Each of the dispositions of this case, based on the premise that the service charges of this case is recognized as necessary expenses and the remaining 000 won is appropriated as false expenses, on the ground that the head of the Dongwon Tax Office had expressed all of the cash delivery places at the time of investigation, on the ground that the cash delivery places are unclear, provided that the above service charges of 000 won are recognized as necessary expenses and that the cash delivery places are not clear.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form 2 is as shown in the relevant statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) On December 12, 2005, the Plaintiffs completed the registration of initial ownership in the names of the Plaintiffs with respect to the instant building, and the Plaintiffs Jeong operated entertainment taverns under the trade name, “FFF” on the third floor of the instant building from April 7, 2008.

2) The sales amount reported in the taxable period of value-added tax for January 2009 at the instant business establishment was KRW 000 (credit card sales amount of KRW 000, Cash Receipt sales amount of KRW 000), and the sales amount reported in the taxable period of value-added tax for the second period of value-added tax in 2009 was KRW 00 ( KRW 000,000,000). From February 2, 2009, when the instant business establishment was registered under the name of JungCC, the sales amount was transferred from each credit card company to the head of one bank bank account in the name of Jung-CC (hereinafter “the instant passbook”).

(3) Meanwhile, from April 19, 2009 to December 23, 2009, the sum of the amounts remitted or replaced to the Plaintiff Newly Inserted by Presidential Decree No. 19000, Apr. 19, 2009; Presidential Decree No. 19005, Apr. 29, 2009; Presidential Decree No. 17000, Jun. 7, 2009; Presidential Decree No. 1880, Jun. 27, 2009; Presidential Decree No. 21635, Jun. 30, 200; Presidential Decree No. 21648, Jul. 29, 2009; Presidential Decree No. 21647, Aug. 3, 2009; Presidential Decree No. 21657, Feb. 19, 200; Presidential Decree No. 21673, Feb. 19, 2009>

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 6, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 15, and 16, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) Determination on the first argument of the plaintiffs

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged as above and the overall purport of oral argument, i.e., ① the credit card settlement amount deposited in the business passbook in the name of CC from April 19, 2009 to December 23, 2009, it had been attributed to the Plaintiff NewBB prior to the entry into the Gun, such as substitute payment or transfer to the Plaintiff, and ② the Plaintiff’s operation of entertainment tavern from April 16, 2008 from 3rd of the building of this case, it seems that the business registration registered in the name of MaCC was merely simply simply simply changed the trade name and name, and the Plaintiffs asserted that the business establishment of this case was established with money deposited in the name of MaCC from April 19, 209 to December 23, 2009. However, the Plaintiffs’ assertion that there was no objective evidence as to the business establishment at the time of MaCC’s establishment of the entertainment tavern from July 20, 2008.

2) Judgment on the second argument by the plaintiffs

(3) Article 2(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that the tax authorities shall bear the burden of proof regarding the legality of taxation disposition and the existence of tax requirements in the administrative litigation seeking revocation of taxation disposition. However, considering that most of the necessary expenses are favorable to taxpayers, and it is easy to prove such necessary expenses, it is consistent with the concept of fairness to allow presumption of non-existence of necessary expenses and to recognize the need for proof to taxpayers (see Supreme Court Decision 202Du1588, Sept. 23, 2004). Article 20 of the former Act provides that “The tax authorities shall have the burden of proof regarding the above taxation disposition.” Article 20 of the Income Tax Act provides that “The above tax authorities shall have the burden of proof as necessary expenses for 10% of the total amount of sales revenue of each of the above 20-year service business income and 20-year service income, which is the basis of the Plaintiffs’ taxation disposition, and it is difficult for the Plaintiffs to prove the burden of proof as the Plaintiffs.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.