Whether the amount of a bonus to be disposed of at the time of estimation is an omission in sales or estimated income from sales.

Since it is illegal to determine the tax base by mixing the on-site investigation and the estimated investigation with respect to a single taxable object, the taxation disposition that only a part of the revenue amount is estimated is illegal.

Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act

Article 69 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act

1. The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 9,043,240 of global income tax in 199 against the Plaintiff on February 3, 2003; ② the imposition of KRW 1,898,409 of global income tax in 2000; ③ the imposition of KRW 41,264,30 of global income tax in 2001; and the imposition of KRW 1,62,788 of global income tax in excess of KRW 1,62,788 of global income tax in 200.

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

The phrase "9,043,243 won of global income tax amount in 1999" appears to be a clerical error in "9,043,240 won", and "100,402,174 won of global income tax in 2000" seems to be a clerical error in "100,402,170 won" among the claims of the complaint.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. ○○○○ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○○○○”) is a company under the Commercial Act that runs the wholesale business of fishery products in ○○○○○-dong ○○○○○○○, and the Plaintiff is the representative director of ○○○○○○.

B. In the process of conducting a tax investigation with respect to ○○○○○, a stock company, and ○○○○○○, a stock company that traded with ○○○○○○, the director of the regional tax office confirmed that ○○○○ purchased fishery products equivalent to an amount of money by the pertinent business year indicated in the column for omitting purchase of the following table without receiving a tax invoice or an invoice from each company during the business year from 1999 to 2001, and did not file a corporate tax return thereon, and notified the Defendant of this fact.

C. On February 3, 2003, the Defendant calculated the amount omitted from sales by calculating the gross profit ratio of sales for a certain period under Article 69(1)4(d) of the Enforcement Decree of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act by adding the value-added tax amount on the remaining taxable portion (each amount on the pertinent business year indicated in the column for value-added tax in the above table) calculated by adding the amount omitted from sales to the amount omitted from sales in the pertinent business year indicated in the above table, based on the total profit ratio of sales and the gross profit ratio of gross profit. The Defendant issued the instant disposition imposing a notice to the Plaintiff to additionally pay the amount indicated in the column for disposal of income to the Plaintiff in the above table, excluding the exempted portion in the above table, as the bonus for the pertinent business year.

199 business year

200 business year

201 Business year

Total

Amount omitted in purchase

31,911,147 won

176,691,776 won

91,906,135 won

300,509,058 won

Gross profit ratio

7.20%

6.40% by mass

5.80%

Amount omitted in sales

34,393,713 won

188,724,217 won

97,585,197 won

320,703,127 won

Value-added Tax

1,977,834 won

10,617,593 won

3,779,378 won

16,374,805 won

Amount of income disposal;

36,371,547 won

199,341,810 won

101,364,575 won

37,077,932 won

(e) Procedures of the previous trial;

① Plaintiff, February 14, 2003

Defendant, May 12, 2003 (Dismissal of Objection)

② Plaintiff, May 23, 2003

Commissioner of the National Tax Service, May 25, 2004 (Dismissal of a request for review)

[Grounds for Recognition] No dispute

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In order to confirm the omission in sales of a corporation and to correct the corporate tax base, if the tax authority disposes of the amount omitted in sales included in the following amount as a bonus to the representative of the corporation, the income tax shall be imposed on the representative of the corporation concerned on the amount subject to the disposition of income. Therefore, in the principle of substantial taxation, the amount subject to the disposition of income in accordance with the principle of substantial taxation shall be limited to the amount actually reverted to the representative of the

As seen in the instant case, in a case where ○○○○○ applied each gross profit ratio to the omitted amount in filing a corporate tax return, and converted the amount included in gross income into bonus to the Plaintiff, the representative of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, the purchase amount included in deductible expenses shall be deducted when correcting the corporate tax standard, as it is recognized that ○○○○○ actually paid it to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, a corporation, on the basis of the omitted amount in filing a corporate tax return. Furthermore, the amount omitted in sales is not recognized through the on-site investigation, but it is merely converted by applying the above sales profit ratio to the omitted amount, and it is difficult to deem that ○○○○○○○○○ actually actually collected the value-added tax amount

Therefore, the disposition of this case, based on the premise that the total amount of the income disposal amount in the above list, which is the amount including the above input tax amount and value-added tax amount, should be disposed of as a bonus to the plaintiff for the pertinent business year, is unlawful

(b) Related statutes;

○ Article 66 of the Corporate Tax Act, Decision and Correction

(2) Where a domestic corporation files a report under Article 60, the head of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment or the Commissioner of the competent Regional Tax Office shall correct the tax base and amount of corporate tax on the income

1. Where there are errors or omissions in the contents of the report;

(3) Where the chief of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment or the Commissioner of the competent Regional Tax Office determines or revises the tax base and amount of corporate tax under paragraphs (1) and (2), he shall based on the account books and other documentary evidence: Provided, That where it is impossible to calculate the amount of income on the grounds of account books or other documentary evidence as prescribed by the Presidential Decree

Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act

In filing a report on the tax base of corporate tax on the income for each business year under the provisions of Article 60 or in determining or revising the tax base of corporate tax under the provisions of Article 66 or 69, the amount included in gross income shall be disposed of as bonus, dividends, and other outflow from the company and in-house reservation, etc. according to the person to

Article 106 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act

(1) The amount included in the calculation of earnings under the provisions of Article 67 of the Act shall be disposed of under the provisions of the following subparagraphs. The same shall apply to non-profit domestic corporations

1. Where the amount included in the calculation of earnings has clearly leaked out of the company, the dividends, bonuses from the disposition of profits, other income, and other outflow from the company under each of the following items according to the person to whom they accrue: Provided, That where the accrual is unclear, it shall be deemed as accrual to the representative (where the total number of stocks held by an officer who is not a minority shareholder under the provisions of Article 87 (2) and persons in a special relationship under the provisions of paragraph (4) of the same Article is 30% or more of the total number of stocks issued or total investment amount of the relevant corporation and the officer actually controls the operation of the corporation, he shall be deemed the representative, and where a corporation has reported that there is a separate representative among the officers who are stockholders, etc., who represent the relevant corporation, the reported person shall be the representative, and where there are 2 or more representatives, the de facto representative; hereinafter the same shall apply):

(b) If the person to whom it belongs is an officer or employee, the bonus to the person to whom it reverts;

Article 69 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act

(1) Estimations referred to in the proviso to Article 21 (2) of the Act shall be made by the methods referred to in the following subparagraphs:

4. Calculation method by either of the following criteria determined by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service for each type of business or each region:

(d) A sales profit rate which determines the ratio of the sales to the gross sales profit during a fixed period;

C. Determination

Before determining the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Defendant’s method of calculating the omitted amount of sales is limited to whether the method of calculating the omitted amount of sales is legitimate (the Plaintiff asserted that the purchase amount and the amount of value-added tax should be deducted from the income disposal amount as above, but did not dispute whether the Defendant’s method of calculating the omitted amount of sales was legitimate or not. However, the omission amount calculated by the Defendant itself constitutes an appraisal judgment on facts, not an “fact that is subject to proof,” and thus, even if the Plaintiff did not dispute whether the method of calculating the omitted amount

Since determining the tax base by mixing a single tax object with on-site investigation and a separate investigation by estimation cannot be deemed as a taxation method recognized by the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Corporate Tax Act and the Value-Added Tax Act, part of the sales omitted and the sales amount of the return shall be deemed to be unlawful to calculate each tax base by the method of on-site investigation (see Supreme Court Decision 9Du9193, Dec. 24, 2001).

However, comprehensively taking account of each of the statements in Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 2, and Eul evidence 1, 2, the defendant's tax base and tax amount of ○○○○'s corporate tax from 1999 to 2001, the defendant calculated the sales amount of fishery products of 300,509,058 won in total purchased from ○○○○○○, a stock company, and ○○○○○'s corporate tax return of corporate tax, by applying the above transaction profit ratio as to the sales amount of fishery products of 300,50,058 won. In addition, it can be acknowledged that the facts calculated by the method of a field investigation are calculated by applying the above transaction profit ratio to the sales amount reported by ○○○○○, a single taxable object mixed with a field investigation and estimation investigation, and the above law is applicable.

Therefore, the disposition of this case, which is based on the omitted amount of sales calculated by the above method, is unlawful without examining further.

D. Scope of revocation

Even if the defendant establishes the omitted sales amount of ○○○○ through the on-site investigation, or if the estimated sales amount has a significant impact on the sales amount of the pertinent taxable period, he/she shall determine the estimated sales amount on the whole income during the pertinent taxable period, and impose and notify the plaintiff to pay the comprehensive income tax after disposing of it based on the estimated sales amount. Thus, the reasonable tax amount cannot be calculated at present. Thus, the disposition of this case shall be revoked in entirety. However, since the plaintiff only seeks revocation of some of the disposition of this case, the defendant's disposition of imposition of global income tax of 1999 against the plaintiff on February 3, 200, the disposition of imposition of KRW 9,043,240 for global income tax of 199, ② the disposition of imposition of KRW 100,402,170 for global income tax of 200, KRW 1898,40 for global income tax of 201, KRW 41,264,300 for global income tax year 26868.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and all of them are accepted, and it is so decided as per Disposition.