Where a taxpayer omits some of the expenses to be included in deductible expenses in filing a return on tax base for corporate tax, whether it may claim for the inclusion in deductible expenses and correction thereof after the period for filing a return on modification expires (negative)

Since the current law only recognizes the revised return system and does not grant taxpayers the right to claim for reorganization, even if it is recognized that some of the expenses to be included in deductible expenses are omitted in the return of tax base for corporate tax, it can not be claimed to change and include them in deductible expenses after the lapse of the period for filing the revised return.

Articles 22 and 45 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Articles 10-2 and 25 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on International Taxes

Dong Shipping & Fisheries Corporation

the director of the tax office

Of the imposition of Class A earned income tax on September 23, 1985 by the Defendant against the Plaintiff, the part exceeding KRW 80,390,100 and KRW 16,159,870, and the defense tax on KRW 53,940,59,00 and KRW 10,869,970 shall be revoked, respectively.

The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

The costs of lawsuit shall be four minutes, and one of them shall be borne by the defendant and the other, respectively by the plaintiff.

Of the imposition of corporate tax of KRW 69,488,630 against the Plaintiff on September 23, 1985 and the imposition of KRW 16,188,169,60, and the defense tax of KRW 10,514,380, and KRW 2,459,60, and KRW 80,39,100, and KRW 16,159,870, respectively, of the imposition of KRW 18,974,115, and KRW 3,876,680, the amount exceeding the defense tax of KRW 16,680 shall be revoked.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant.

1. On February 29, 1984, the Plaintiff filed a return of KRW 1,162,361 with the tax base of corporate tax in the business year of 1983 and voluntarily paid the corresponding corporate tax and defense tax. On September 23, 1985, the Defendant found that there were KRW 3.06,50, and KRW 159,245,884, out of the revenue from transportation from August 29, 1983 to December 12, 1984, the amount was added to gross income, corporate tax base was 163,474,745 won (=1,62,361 won + KRW 3,06,50 + KRW 159,245,000 calculated based on the tax base stated in the attached Table 1 attached hereto, and there was no dispute between the parties concerned, who filed a return of KRW 69,50,481,50 and the amount imposed on Gap, 29814,305-1,540

2. In regard to the allegation of legality of the taxation disposition in this case on the grounds of the above disposition grounds and applicable provisions of law, the plaintiff alleged that there was an omission of import, or Article 9 (1) of the Corporate Tax Act provides that income for each business year of a domestic corporation shall be the total amount of gross income which belongs or will belong to the pertinent business year minus the total amount of deductible expenses which belongs or will belong to the pertinent business year, and the plaintiff, other than the deductible expenses already reported to the plaintiff, first, the bus belonging to the plaintiff company sustained injury to other persons and went to KRW 294,50,000 for the accident compensation agreement amount. Second, the plaintiff's 47,940,000 won was the coefficient working allowance employed to prevent transportation embezzlement of transportation revenue and guide, and third, the amount borrowed over several occasions from the non-party new credit cooperative shall be included in deductible expenses without deducting the amount of 34,482,046 won, and the defendant's tax disposition was unlawful.

3. First of all, 69,48,630 won and 10,514,380 won were found to be included in the corporate tax base. Article 22(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that the amount of national tax shall be determined by different procedures under the relevant tax laws, and Article 10-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that if the amount of corporate tax is determined according to the procedures under Article 22(1) of the Act, it shall be the same as those under the following subparagraphs, and the so-called “tax return system” in the main sentence of subparagraph 1 provides that the taxpayer shall be reported to the Government within the statutory time limit (30 days for submission of the revised tax base return within 15 days, and Article 26(1) of the Corporate Tax Act provides that the corporation which is subject to tax payment shall be allowed to voluntarily calculate the amount of corporate tax at the time of return within the statutory time limit of 9 days, and that the amount of corporate tax paid at the same time shall be determined within 15 days after the final return or revised tax base return.

4. Next, the part of the Class A earned income amounting to KRW 80,390,100 and the defense tax amounting to KRW 16,159,870 shall be deemed as follows: (a) whether the cost of the Plaintiff’s accident compensation agreement, the coefficient crew allowance, the loan interest, etc. was actually paid.

먼저 계수원 승무수당 부분을 보건대, 증인 공희철의 증언에 의하여 각 진정성립이 인정되는 갑 제5호증(수당명단), 갑 제6호증의 1 내지 6(명세서 표지 및 내용)의 각 기재에 같은 증인과 증인 정회성, 장성주의 각 증언(다만, 증인 공희철의 증언 중 뒤에서 믿지 않는 부분 제외)을 모아 보면, 원고는 시내버스 운송업을 영위하는 법인으로서 1983.8.부터 같은 해 12.까지 사이에 운전사나 안내양이 수입금을 유출하는 것을 막아 운송수입증대를 기하기 위하여 계수원을 수시로 버스에 승차시켜 승차인원수를 보고하게 하고 계수원 1인당 1일 금 15,000원씩의 보수를 지급하여 위 기간중 모두 금 47,940,000원이 소요되었는데 이를 공개하면 조합과 사이에 말썽이 생기기 때문에 이를 공개하기 어려워 법인세 과세표준신고시에도 신고누락하였던 사실은 인정할 수 있고, 반증없으나 다음 사고보상합의금 부분을 보건대, 원고회사 차량이 1983.7.19.부터 같은 해 12.23.까지 사이에 13건의 교통사고를 내어 같은 해 8.3.부터 같은 해 12.30.까지 사이에 소외 박영애등 피해자들에게 모두 금 29,450,000원을 사고보상합의금조로 지급하였는데 이를 자동차보험으로 처리하게 되면 다음 번의 보험료율이 인상되고 사고차량은 운행정지처분을 받게 되며 운전사의 벌점이 늘어 개인택시를 받을 기회가 떨어지기 때문에 이를 보험처리하지 않고 원고의 돈으로 지급하였다는 내용에 부합하는 갑 제4호증의 1(현황표), 2 내지 14(각 합의서), 갑 제7호증(현금출납부)의 각 기재와 증인 공희철, 김선태의 각 증언이 있으나, 사고차량운전자, 사고경위, 피해상황, 보상비 산정기준 등을 알수 있는 자료가 없고 보상비 수령인들의 소재조차 파악되지 않고 있는 상태에서(당원에서 그들 중 소외 남정의, 이옥희가 증인으로 채택되었으나 소재불명으로 증인신문이 시행되지 못하였고 원고도 더 이상의 입증을 포기하고 있다)위 각 기재(갑 제7호증의 그 기재사항이 너무 간단하여 원고가 평소에 작성, 비치하여 온 장부로 보기도 어렵다)나 증언(다만 증언 공희철의 증언 중 앞에서 믿은 부분제외)을 선뜻 믿기 어렵고, 달리 이를 인정할 증거없으며, 마지막으로 차용금이자 부분을 보건대, 원고가 대표이사인 정용락 명의로 소외 새한신용협동조합으로부터 여러 번에 걸쳐서 돈을 차용하고 장부상으로는 대표이사 수금으로 정리한 후 그에 대한 이자조로 모두 금 34,482,046원을 지급하였다는 내용에 부합하는 갑 제8호증의 1(이자명세서), 갑 제9호증(명세서)의 가 기재와 증인 김선태의 증언이 있으나, 위 차용금이 원고회사에 입금되어 언제 어떠한 용도에 사용되었는지를 알수 있는 자료가 없는 이상 위 각 기재나 증언을 쉽사리 믿기 어렵고, 갑 제8호증의 2 내지 7(각 계산서)의 각 기재는 위 새한신용협동조합이 정용락 개인 앞으로 작성하여 준 문서이므로 그것이 실질적으로 원고회사에서 차용한 돈임을 인정하기 위한 자료가 될 수 없고, 달리 이를 인정할 증거 없는 바, 위 인정사실에 의하면, 위 계수원 승무수당 금 47,940,000원은 실제로 원고회사를 위하여 지출된 것임에도 피고가 신고누락 운송수입금 159,245,884원 전액이 사유외출되었다 하여 이를 대표이사에 대하여 상여한 것으로 보고서 한 위 갑종근로소득세 금 80,390,100원과 방위세 금 16,159,870원의 각 부과처분은 위법하다 할 것이고, 위 계수된 승무수당을 공제한 나머지만을 대표이사에 대한 상여로 보고 세액을 산출하면 별표 3세액산출표 기재와 같이 갑종근로소득세 금 53,,940,590원과 방위세 금 10,869,970원이 된다.

5. Thus, the plaintiff's principal claim is justified to the extent that it seeks the revocation of the portion exceeding KRW 53,940,59,970 and KRW 10,869,970 in the imposition of KRW 80,39,100 of Class A earned income tax and KRW 16,159,870 of the defense tax, and KRW 53,940 of Class A earned income tax and KRW 10,869,970 of the defense tax, and the remaining claims are dismissed without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices with regard to the bearing of litigation costs by applying Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Articles 89 and 92 of the Civil Procedure

Judges Lee Jong-sik (Presiding Judge)