early 201J 3255 ( December 20, 2011)

There is no violation of the corporate tax imposition disposition that did not include vehicle personnel expenses and personnel expenses in deductible expenses;

In the event that a taxpayer has omitted a report on the expenses to be included in deductible expenses, not only omitted a return on revenues to be included in gross income, the existence and amount of such expenses should be added by the verification of the claimant for inclusion in deductible expenses with respect to the fact that such expenses have been omitted.

2012Guhap3539, revocation of disposition of imposing corporate tax, etc.

AAAAA Corporation

Head of the tax office

April 10, 2013

May 1, 2013

1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part that the Defendant sought revocation of the disposition imposing corporate tax of KRW 000 for the Plaintiff on February 1, 201, 2005, corporate tax of KRW 000 for the year 2007, and corporate tax of KRW 000 for the year 2008, and corporate tax of KRW 000 for the year 2008 against the Plaintiff on February 111, 201 shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

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

(1) The imposition of corporate tax of KRW 000 for the Plaintiff on February 1, 201, the Defendant imposed corporate tax of KRW 000 for the year 2005, corporate tax of KRW 000 for the year 2007, corporate tax of KRW 000 for the year 2008, and corporate tax of KRW 006 for the Plaintiff on February 11, 2011, and the imposition of KRW 000 for the corporate tax of KRW 200 for the Plaintiff on February 21, 2011 for the Plaintiff on February 20, 200, or the Defendant revoked each disposition of KRW 00 for the Plaintiff on February 20, 200 for the year 205, KRW 00 for the year 200 for the year 200 for the year 207, and KRW 200 for the year 200 for the year 200, respectively.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From January 1, 2005 to 000 OB, the Plaintiff runs the construction business under the trade name of AAAAA corporation. The Defendant, as a result of an integrated investigation into corporate tax for each business year from 2005 to 2009 against the Plaintiff, deemed that the Plaintiff reported the total sales amount of KRW 00,000, and 00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,000,00,000,00,000,00,000,000,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

B. On May 19, 201, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with it and made an objection office on May 19, 201, and on June 16, 201, the head of the Suwon Tax Office decided to re-examine the expenses used by the Plaintiff in China and to take subsequent measures according to the result. Accordingly, the Suwon Tax Office reduced the office rent among the expenses submitted by the Plaintiff, the support accommodation rent, the vehicle rental expenses, and the food expenses, and excluded the expenses from the deductible expenses by recognizing the expenses, the personnel expenses, the vehicle acquisition expenses, and the vehicle maintenance expenses, and the vehicle maintenance expenses.

C. On September 7, 2011, the Plaintiff re-appealed and tried to the Tax Tribunal on September 7, 201, and on December 20, 201, the Tax Tribunal determined that the vehicle maintenance expenses should be additionally recognized as expenses among the particulars of the expenses submitted by the Plaintiff and included in the calculation of losses. Accordingly, the Tax Tribunal did not reduce or rectify corporate tax for 2007, corporate tax for 2008, corporate tax for 2000, and corporate tax for 2009, corporate tax for 2009, and corporate tax for 2000, as bonus for the Plaintiff’s representative, and excluded the amount disposed of as income as a bonus for the Plaintiff’s representative in 2000, and the imposition of corporate tax and the notice of change in the income amount remaining after the reduction of the initial disposition in this case as follows:

(F) The following

[Ground of Recognition] The non-satched facts, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 through 8, and 12 (including household numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), and the whole purport of the pleading

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s main defense

A. The defendant's assertion

The claims for the cancellation of the notice of change in income amount in 205, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2008, among the claims in this case, are unlawful because they fail to go through legitimate pre-trial procedures.

B. Determination

1) Under Articles 55 and 56(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, a person who is dissatisfied with the imposition of corporate tax and notice of change in income amount of a national tax can institute an administrative litigation against it only after undergoing the entire island procedure of a request for examination or adjudgment under the same Act. In this case, a request for examination or adjudgment must comply with the request period. Thus, if the entire island procedure of a request for examination or adjudgment is illegal due to the passage of the period, administrative litigation is not in conformity with the request period, and it is improper that the administrative agency did not meet the request period, and this does not change even if the administrative agency made a substantial decision upon a request for an improper trial against the passage of the request period for the entire trial procedure, and even if the administrative agency made a final decision upon the request, it does not change (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Nu754, Nov. 24, 198; 90Nu8091, Jun. 25, 1991).

2) Any claim seeking revocation of corporate tax for 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008

On February 14, 201, and 207, and 2008, the tax payment notice of corporate tax for the imposition of corporate tax for the year 2008, and on February 17, 2011, and on May 19, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an objection seeking the cancellation of this part with the head of the Suwon Tax Office on the condition that the above objection was filed on May 19, 201, and 205, 2005, 207, and 90 days after the date of receipt of the notice of the disposition imposing corporate tax for the imposition of corporate tax for the year 200, and 200, and 20,000,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,000.

3) Any claim for cancellation with respect to notice of change in income amount in 205, 2006, 2007, and 2008.

On February 23, 2011, 2006, 2007, and 2008, the plaintiff sent each notice of change in the income amount to the head of Suwon Tax Office on May 19, 201, and filed an objection seeking cancellation of this part with the head of Suwon Tax Office on February 19, 201, as seen earlier, and it is apparent that the plaintiff filed an objection before the lapse of 90 days from the date of receipt of the notice of change in the income amount in 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008, and therefore, the objection agency on this part is lawful. Accordingly, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff was importing approximately 7,00 tons and approximately 000 won each year from 2005 to 2009, and the plaintiff was unable to periodically transfer the expenses paid in China through financial institutions because it had a regular office in China. The plaintiff was using 000 won for office rent in China, support accommodation rent, vehicle rental expenses, vehicle rental expenses, vehicle rental expenses, vehicle maintenance expenses, and vehicle maintenance expenses. The head of the Suwon Tax Office and the Tax Tribunal did not recognize only the office rent, support accommodation rent, vehicle rental expenses, and vehicle maintenance expenses, and vehicle maintenance expenses, and it did not recognize it as bonus for the representative of the plaintiff, and it was illegal for 2000 and 2007 years from 2005 to 2006, and 2007 from 2009 to 207.

B. Determination

1) Determination on corporate tax for the year 2009

A) If a person liable for tax payment finds any revenue, such as omitted sales, in filing a return on the tax base of corporate tax, etc., the competent tax office may include the omitted revenue in the gross income, and if there is a fact that the person liable for tax payment has not omitted only the report on the income industry in filing a return on the tax base, but also the expenses to be included in the deductible expenses, the existence and the amount of such expenses should be added by the verification of the person who asserts the inclusion of the expenses in deductible expenses, and if there is no such proof, no additional expense can be found (Supreme Court Decision 99Du4556 delivered on November 12, 199).

(B) According to Gap evidence 2 to 5, and Eul evidence 2, and 00, and 00, the monthly base amount for the plaintiff submitted in the instant lawsuit, and 00, and 00, if the amount of transportation cost paid by the plaintiff was 00, and 00, the monthly base amount for which the plaintiff submitted 00, and 1,000, the amount of transportation cost for which would have been 00, and 00,000, the monthly base amount for which would have been 0, were 00, and the amount of transportation cost would have been 0,000, and 1,000,00,000,00 were 0,000,000,000,000 were 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00.

2) Determination on the notice of change in income amount in 205, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009

A) As long as the revenue of a corporation that was released from the company without being entered in the account book is not clear, the tax authority cannot be liable to dispose of it as a bonus for the representative pursuant to Article 32(5) of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 94-2(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and if so, the burden of proving that it is clear that it is reverted to the representative (see Supreme Court Decision 92Nu6747, Aug. 14, 1992).

B) According to Gap evidence No. 12, the number of times the plaintiff's representative enters and departs from 2005 to 2009 is recognized to have reached 33 times, and as seen above, it is difficult to believe that DoB directly paid personnel expenses for workers in China, DoD, E, and F, and that DoOO, the representative of the plaintiff, would be equivalent to the amount omitted from the plaintiff's sales, in full view of the fact that DoOO, which was the plaintiff's representative, could be considered to have been used as expenses for staying in a foreign country. Thus, the amount of income in 205, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2008, and 2009, 2009, which was disposed of as bonus for the plaintiff's representative.

The notification of change also does not contain any error.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, among the lawsuit in this case, the part of the defendant's imposition of 000 won of corporate tax for 2005, 000 won of corporate tax for 2007, and 0000 won of corporate tax for 2008, and 2000 won of corporate tax for 2006 against the plaintiff on February 111, 201 is unlawful and dismissed, and the remaining claims of the plaintiff are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.