The early 2011 middle 2180

Unless objective and apparent evidence is presented to deem that a park is included in an extra cost, the amount of the processed value shall be equivalent to the amount of the recognized bonus.

In the case of a virtual park disposed of as a bonus to the representative, it shall be deemed that the corporation tax has been filed by appropriating the item of account at will without verification of qualification and appropriating it as a deductible expense, and in the case of a virtual park disposed of as a bonus to the representative, it shall be the amount of the recognized bonus, unless there is an objective and apparent evidence that it is included in the cost of offcoming loss.

Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act

2012Guhap3311 global income and revocation of disposition

IsaA

Head of Namyang District Tax Office

October 22, 2013

December 17, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

On March 4, 2011, the Defendant revoked the disposition of imposition of the global income tax for the Plaintiff on March 4, 2011.

1. Details of the disposition;

"A. The plaintiff is the representative director of the non-party BB Comprehensive Construction (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party 2"). The non-party 2 entered into a contract with the non-party 2, on June 30, 2007, for a multi-household construction (hereinafter referred to as the "instant construction") on the ground of OO-Eup 139-4, and 135-6." The non-party 2, who entered into an integrated investigation on the non-party 2, from July 9, 2010 to October 29, 2010, the non-party 2, who reported the non-party 2, as the non-party 2, as the non-party 2, as the non-party 2, as the non-party 1, as the non-party 2, as the non-party 2, as the non-indicted 2, as the non-indicted 1, as the total amount of the processed purchase tax invoice received to the defendant, and the non-indicted 2, as the non-indicted 200 O and 20.

"After that time, the defendant included the amount of OOO in the amount of global income of the plaintiff on March 8, 201, and corrected and notified the amount of OOOOO (hereinafter "the disposition of this case") for the plaintiff on March 8, 201," [the grounds for recognition], without dispute, entry in Gap's 1 or 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The non-party company did not have the cash of the board of directors that the plaintiff would be individually useful. Rather, the plaintiff and the plaintiff's food only paid the insufficient funds of the non-party company on behalf of the non-party company. The issue amount of this case is the amount used in full at the expense of the non-party company. The non-party company was merely an amount of the issue amount of this case equivalent to 80% out of the estimated cost amount of expenses actually paid because the non-party company could not properly include the corresponding expenses at the time of filing corporate tax return in 2009. The non-party company delayed the entry of the cost, etc. in the form of expenses, etc. in 2009. The reasons why the non-party company delayed the entry of the cost, etc. are because it was difficult for the non-party company to unilaterally suspend the construction work of this case, and the employees of the non-party company from the account of this case were frequently changed. Accordingly, the issue amount of this case should have been distributed to the non-party company or other income outflow, and it constitutes the issue of this case.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

According to Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10423, Dec. 30, 2010; hereinafter the same), when reporting the corporate tax base on income for a business year or determining or revising the corporate tax base pursuant to Article 66 or 69, the amount included in the calculation of earnings shall be disposed of to the person to whom such income belongs, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as bonus, dividends, other outflow and internal reserve, and Article 106 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23589, Feb. 2, 2012) provides that where it is obvious that the amount included in the calculation of earnings has clearly leaked out of the company, and it is unclear to whom it reverts, the amount included in the calculation of earnings shall be deemed reverted to the representative. In addition, according to Articles 20 and 127 of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9897, Dec. 31, 2009; hereinafter the same).

On the other hand, where a corporation fails to record its sales in the account book despite the fact of sales or appropriates the cost of processing in the account book, barring any special circumstance, the profit of the corporation equivalent to the omitted sales or the cost of processing shall be deemed to have been leaked out of the company. In this case, there is a need to prove that the total amount of the cost of processing is not leaked outside the company (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du16347, Dec. 24, 199).

(5) The purport of the Corporate Tax Act lies in allowing the Plaintiff to consider the amount of the 3rd anniversary of its substance as bonus for the 2010 OO's new document evidencing that the amount of the 1st 5th Doctrine of the 1st Doctrine of the 1st Doctrine and the 4th Doctrine of the Doctrine of the 4th Doctrine of the Doctrine of the Doctrine of the Doctrine of the Doctrine of the Doctrine of the Doctrine of the Doctrine of the Doctrine of the Doctrine of the Doctrine of the Doctrine of the Doctrine of the Doctrine of the Doctrine of the Doctrine of the Doctrine of the Doctrine of the Doctrine of the Doctrine of the 201207th O.

Therefore, the disposition of this case is legitimate since the issue amount of this case is deemed to belong to the plaintiff, and there is no room for a double taxation problem. The plaintiff's assertion against this issue is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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