early 201st century 2736 ( October 28, 2012)

If credibility of the data secured by the taxpayer is not recognized, it does not constitute a basis for the on-site investigation.

The burden of proving the amount of income in determining the amount of income is, in principle, imposed on the tax authority, and when correcting the amount of income due to an error or omission in the details of the report, if the data secured by the taxpayer is not recognized to be reliable, it does not constitute a basis for the on-site investigation.

Article 16 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2012Guhap20076 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

JAA

Head of Nowon Tax Office

July 25, 2013

October 10, 2013

1. The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax on the first period of 2007, the second period of 2007, the first period of 2008, the first period of 2008, the second period of 2008, the second period of OOOOO, the first period of 2009, the first period of 2009, the second period of OOOOO, the second period of 2009, and the second period of OOOOO, and the first period of 2010.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

“A. From November 1, 2006, the Plaintiff operated an OO-dong O-gu O 506-1 BB department stores with the second floor of BBB department stores in the second floor of BBB center (hereinafter “instant bowling”).” (b) The Plaintiff reported the value-added tax base and tax amount as listed below in the following table in the taxable period of value-added tax from January 2007 to January 201, 201.

No.

Year

Tax Base (won)

Value-Added Tax (won)

1

For the first term, 2007

OOO

OOO

2

For the second period, 2007

OOO

OOO

3

For the first term, 2008

OOO

OOO

4

For the second period, 2008

OOO

OOO

5

For the first term, 2009

OOO

OOO

6

For the second period, 2009

OOO

OOO

7

For the first term, 2010

OOO

OOO

C. From November 18, 2010 to December 9, 2010, the Defendant conducted a tax investigation with the Plaintiff, and calculated the amount of income of the instant bowling site on the basis of X-cell files (hereinafter “the instant data”) kept in the Plaintiff’s workplace, and deemed that the Plaintiff omitted the amount of income as shown in the following table, the Defendant rendered a disposition on February 7, 201 to the Plaintiff on February 7, 201, each of the instant notice of correction and disposition issued by the Plaintiff No. 1 OO in the first period of 2007, 2007, 2OOO in the second period of 2008, 2OOO in the second period of 2008, 2OOO in the second period of 209, 2009, OOOO in the second period of 209, 209, and 1OO in the second period of 2010 (hereinafter “instant correction”).

Year

Reported Tax Base (won)

Revised tax base (won)

Amount of omitted revenue (won)

1

For the first term, 2007

OOO

OOO

OOO

2

For the second period, 2007

OOO

OOO

OOO

3

For the first term, 2008

OOO

OOO

OOO

4

For the second period, 2008

OOO

OOO

OOO

5

For the first term, 2009

OOO

OOO

OOO

6

For the second period, 2009

OOO

OOO

OOO

7

For the first term, 2010

OOO

OOO

OOO

D. On July 26, 201, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on July 26, 201, but was dismissed on March 28, 2012.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The data of this case, which the Defendant used as the basis for the instant disposition, stated a larger amount of money than the actual sales to receive premium. The Defendant, without any reasonable investigation, concluded that all of the written amounts based only on the data of this case was the Plaintiff’s revenue and imposed thereon. Thus, the instant disposition is contrary to the underlying taxation principle.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Facts of recognition

1) From December 20, 2007 to December 20, 2007, SongCC worked in the instant bowling site and took charge of overall management, such as external business, internal management, and membership management, and the Plaintiff was dismissed from the instant bowling site around July 2010.

2) SongCC had made the instant data while working in the instant bowling site. The monthly income (balling place, billiard site, KON, KON and KON), expenditure (management expenses, rents, rents, wages, cards, and beverages) of the instant bowling site was organized into X-cell files by year (2007 to 2010). A summary of this is as follows (unit: source).

Year

Total sales (cost of supply)

Credit Card Sales

Cash sales

2007

OOO

OOO

OOO

208

OOO

OOO

OOO

209

OOO

OOO

OOO

1, 2010

OOO

OOO

OOO

Total

OOO

OOO

OOO

3) The Plaintiff directly managed cash revenues by putting them in a credit cooperative located in the office, and SongCC did not separately report the instant data to the Plaintiff.

4) Meanwhile, from January 2007 to January 201, 2010, cash details deposited into the Plaintiff’s business account (O bank’s 1002-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O) during the taxable period of value-added tax for

Year

1002-O-OOOOO

1005-O-OOOOO

Total

2007

OOO

OOO

OOO

208

OOO

OOO

OOO

209

OOO

OOO

OOO

1, 2010

OOO

OOO

OOO

Total

OOO

OOO

OOO

5) From January 1, 2008 to January 31, 2008, Dodddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd

[Based on recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 5, 8, and Eul evidence Nos. 3, witness ACC, witness testimony of EDR, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

In determining the amount of a corporation’s income, in principle, the tax authority has the burden of proving whether there was a profit to be included in the gross income or the amount of such profit, and in general, the tax authority has the burden of proving whether there was an error or omission in the details of a taxpayer’s return, and in revising the contents of a taxpayer’s return due to an error or omission. However, if it is recognized that there was an error or omission in the details of a return and it is possible to conduct a field investigation, it may be corrected by other data. However, if it is not recognized as credibility to the extent that the value of evidence can not be easily denied because the specific contents of the sales fact secured by the taxpayer are not included in the data secured by the taxpayer, even if it is the data secured by the taxpayer, it does not constitute other

In light of the above legal principles, although the Defendant’s data were based on the instant disposition, the following circumstances, i.e., (i) it cannot be confirmed at all as to which evidence or evidence was prepared, (ii) EEdaybook prepared by DoD, an employee of the Plaintiff, and (iii) it can be deemed as the account books with credibility recognized in light of DoD’s statements. According to the above EEdaybook, the annual sales amount of January 2008 stated in the instant data are OOO, and the annual sales amount of January 2008 stated in the instant data is considerably different from that of OOOO. However, the Defendant did not explain reasonable reasons, and the Defendant did not keep the entire EO within the period of investigation (from 1, 2007 to 1, 2010), and the total amount of 10% cash sales amount stated in the instant data x 70% of the total cash sales amount stated in the instant data.