National Tax Service Review Income 2011-0039 (No. 22, 2011)

Since only the commission fee shall be regarded as the plaintiff's revenue, the disposition imposing the whole subsidy for production is illegal.

Since Rama indirect advertising services are provided by an agency fee equivalent to 10% of the production subsidy, it cannot be deemed that the entire production principal of the production support company was omitted, and thus the disposition imposing the whole sales omitted is unlawful.

2011Guhap12659 global income and revocation of disposition

United StatesA

Head of Ansan Tax Office

November 2, 2012

December 14, 2012

1. The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 43,962, and 070 against the Plaintiff on February 1, 201 shall be revoked.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. BB (hereinafter “BB”) was engaged in marketing and advertising agency business, and the Plaintiff was employed as the representative director of BB from September 2, 2004 to December 1, 2010 when BB was dissolved.

BB on October 15, 2004, issued one copy of the sales tax invoice (hereinafter referred to as “instant tax invoice”) entered as “product DD production support” and “value of supply” to C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “production support company”).

C. The director of the regional tax office deemed that “BB omitted the output tax amount and its sales amount in accordance with the instant tax invoice at the time of filing a corporate tax return in 2004 and 2004,” and that “BB made notification of the change in the amount of bonus disposition against the Plaintiff, the representative director, on the grounds that: (a) imposition of the value-added tax and the corporate tax in 2004; and (b) imposition of the sales amount in 2004; and (c) imposition of the corporate tax in 200 won in 204;

D. On February 1, 2011, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the foregoing fact by the head of the regional tax office, and corrected and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 43,962,070 in global income tax year 2004 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. On February 21, 201, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed a request for examination with the head of the National Tax Office on April 5, 201, but was dismissed on July 22, 2011.

[Reasons for Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1 to 5, Eul evidence 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) On October 14, 2004, BB entered into a program production support agreement between the EE EEpropit Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “producer”) and the production support company, and accordingly received KRW 000 from the production support company as a bill, and remitted to the production company the remainder of the amount excluding 000 won of agency fees. Therefore, the sales to BB are not caused by the above 110 million won, and the tax invoice of this case is merely issued to account settlement that the above discount amount was deposited into the account of BB. Nevertheless, the disposition of this case was unlawful on the premise that BB omitted sales related to the above 000 won.

(2) Even if BB omitted sales of KRW 110,000,000,000,000 does not constitute a case in which the person to whom the sales was omitted is unclear, unless the remainder of the commission was remitted to the producer, excluding KRW 000,00.

B. Determination

(1) It can be recognized that the agreement for the production support of the program was concluded between Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1, and Eul evidence 4, and witness evidence 4, and KimG's testimony, comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances acknowledged as a whole, and between BB and manufacturers, and manufacturers, as described in the following program production support agreement:

① On October 14, 2004, the Plaintiff, and BB entered into a program production support contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the producer and the producer as the qualification for the program production support unit in relation to the production support of SBS DD (hereinafter “instant contract”), and submitted the program production support contract (A evidence 1 and hereinafter “instant contract”).

(Omission of Contract)

② The contract of this case is confirmed in very concrete and detailed manner between the parties to the contract, including the content of production support, the obligations of each party to the contract, and the terms and timing of payment of production support. (3) It is difficult to conclude that the contract of this case was submitted as evidence by forging the contract of this case after the fact that there was no original copy of the contract in that it was made around October 2004. (3) BBB received KRW 000 from the production support company to the corporate bank account on October 25, 2004, and deposited KRW 000 won at a discounted price, and transferred KRW 00 won to the corporate bank account on the same day, and after receiving KRW 00 from the production support company on November 1, 2004 to deposit KRW 00 from the above corporate bank account after deposit KRW 00 to the above corporate bank account and remitting KRW 100 to the above corporate bank account on October 14, 2000.

④ Under the instant contract, the BB’s obligation on behalf of the manufacturing support company so that the so-called drone indirect advertising is effectively made between the production support company and the production company. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that BB did not provide indirect advertising services equivalent to the production support to the production support company, but provided indirect advertising services to the production support company, and that the production support of this case to the production support company was provided to the production support company. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the production support of this case is a price for the production support company of BB.

⑤ On October 15, 2004, BB issued the instant tax invoice on the principal of the production site equivalent to KRW 000,000, in the future of the production support company, and the production support company received input tax credit based on this, and as long as BB provided services for the purchase of drone indirect advertising services by receiving agency fees equivalent to 10% of the production support, it cannot be deemed that BB omitted sales equivalent to 00,000,000,000,000,000 won for the production support company.

(2) Therefore, BB may be deemed to have received agency fees of KRW 000 from a manufacturing support company under the instant contract, and the instant disposition based on the premise that BB was omitted even after receiving 000 won from a manufacturing support company, is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition.