Gwangju District Court-2013-Gu Partnership-10793 ( October 24, 2014)

The propriety of the disposition imposing tax by deeming the amount of account omitted at the time of report on current place to be omitted from total income amount.

The amount of income reported by omission at the time of report on current status is included in other income, and it is difficult to view that the total amount of income at the time of report on current status is not omitted.

Article 70 of the Income Tax Act

2014Nu5926 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing global income tax

AA

000 director of the tax office

Gwangju District Court Decision 2013Guhap10793 Decided July 24, 2014

November 27, 2014

December 11, 2014

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

(cite a judgment of the first instance)

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 39,966,160 for the Plaintiff on February 7, 2013 shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff's status

From December 1, 2005, the Plaintiff is a duty-free business operator who has been engaged in the Kim processing business with the trade name called AAA fishery from Sri-ri, Seoul, Sri-si.

B. The Plaintiff’s current status

In accordance with Article 78 of the Income Tax Act around January 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) among the total revenue amount of KRW 782,648,600 in 201, the amount of revenue (hereinafter referred to as “amount of revenue issued in the following”) proved by a list of total account statements by customer (hereinafter referred to as “amount of revenue issued in the statement”) was KRW 193,750,40; and (b) the amount of other revenue is KRW 58,898,200, and the report on current status (hereinafter referred to as “report on current status”) was made by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff did not include an invoice for Mfood Co., Ltd. and D Food Co., Ltd (hereinafter referred to as “M food and D food”) in the list of account statements by customer submitted at the time of the instant report on current status.

The revenue amount for the company is not also included in the receipt amount of account issuance.

Since then, the defendant pointed out that the amount of receipt issued by the invoice is not consistent with the actual conditions because the invoice for Mfood (value of KRW 115,080,000) and the invoice for D food (value of KRW 15,120,000) are omitted on the aggregate invoice for each seller submitted by the plaintiff at the time of the report on the present status of this case.

was made.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff reflected the omission in the account statement on April 12, 2012, the total amount of income in the year 2011 shall be KRW 782,648,600 in the same way as the previous one, and among them, ① the amount of income issued in the account statement shall be KRW 323,950,400, and ② the amount of other income shall be KRW 458,698,200, respectively.

C. The Plaintiff’s final return on global income tax reverted to year 2011

On May 29, 2012, the Plaintiff paid the total amount of income in KRW 782,648,600, global income amount of KRW 19,608,304, the global income tax base of KRW 12,008,304, the global income tax base of KRW 504,872, and the global income tax base of KRW 504,872, the Plaintiff filed a final return on the tax base of global income tax for the year 201 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant tax base return”) and paid the said global income tax voluntarily.

D. The defendant's disposition of increase or correction

On February 7, 2013, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s total amount of income in 2011 was omitted for Mfood and D Food, the Defendant issued a revised notice of increased or decreased the Plaintiff’s total amount of income in 2011 (the Plaintiff’s total amount of income in 912,848,600 won) and global income amount in 149,808,304 won (the global income tax base is KRW 142,208,304), and accordingly, KRW 40,471,039 (including additional tax 5,598,1133 won) calculated by subtracting the global income tax of KRW 504,872 won reported and paid by the Plaintiff from global income tax of KRW 504,96,167 (the next disposition referred to as “instant disposition”).

(e) Procedures of the previous trial;

On April 25, 2013, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a petition for an inquiry with the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on September 11, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, 5, 8, 11, and 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition of this case is legitimate;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Defendant deemed that KRW 130,200,000, not included in the amount of receipt issued at the time of the instant report on the current status, was omitted from the total amount of KRW 782,648,600 for the year 201 reported by the Plaintiff at the time of the instant report on the current status, and deemed that the said amount was the total amount of KRW 912,848,600 for the said amount as the Plaintiff’s total amount of income in the year 2011

However, the Plaintiff’s failure to include revenues in M&D food at the time of the instant report on the current status is due to the fact that the Plaintiff did not find an account statement for these amounts at the time. Instead, the Plaintiff’s total revenues in 2011 are changed to KRW 782,648,600, since the Plaintiff reported the current status by including the revenues from those in other revenues.

Therefore, the instant disposition, based on the premise that the amount of income for Mfood and D food was omitted from the total amount of income at the time of the instant tax return, is unlawful.

B. Determination

1) Generally, in a lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition imposing tax, the burden of proving the facts of taxation requirements shall be deemed to be the imposing authority. However, if it is revealed that the facts of taxation requirements are presumed in light of the empirical rule in the specific litigation process, the other party cannot be readily deemed to be an illegal disposition that fails to meet the pertinent taxation requirements, unless it proves that the facts at issue were not eligible for application of the empirical rule (see Supreme Court Decision 97Nu2429, Oct. 24, 1997).

2) In light of the above legal principles, the facts as seen earlier are: (a) the Plaintiff omitted the amount of revenue from Mfood and D Food at the time of filing the current status report; (b) the Plaintiff later omitted the amount of revenue from Mfood and D Food from the Defendant; and (c) there was no change in the total amount of revenue by filing a revised return after deducting the amount of revenue from the amount of revenue at the time of filing the current status report; and (iv) the instant tax return was filed in accordance with the contents of the revised report; and (c) even though the amount of revenue from M Food and D Food was omitted at the time of filing the current status report, the total amount of revenue can be presumed omitted from the total amount of revenue at the time of filing the current status report at the time of filing the current status report at the time of filing the current status report at the time of filing the current status report at the time of omitting the amount of revenue from M Food and D Food.

On the other hand, the plaintiff did not keep the account books according to the double-entry bookkeeping, despite the fact that the plaintiff was obligated to adopt double-entry bookkeeping, and did not submit account books stating the details of the plaintiff's sales and purchase, and even in circumstances where transactions can be sufficiently conducted by cash receipt method, only some of the details of financial transactions that the plaintiff submitted by the plaintiff cannot be determined as the plaintiff's revenue amount. ② The plaintiff argued that the plaintiff did not find account statements for Mfood and D food at the time of report of present status and included income amount in other accounts. However, since the plaintiff was in a position to verify the revenue amount of Mfood and D food through financial transactions in his own name and to issue them again, it is difficult to see that the plaintiff's above statement of the plaintiff's 10-year financial transaction was not easily made in accordance with the plaintiff's 16-year financial transaction statement and 2-year financial transaction statement of the plaintiff's 10-year financial transaction statement and 14-year financial transaction statement of the plaintiff's 2-year financial transaction statement.

Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so ordered as per Disposition.

shall be ruled.