Gwangju District Court-2015-Gu Partnership-318 ( September 24, 2015)

High Court 2014 Mine4351 ( November 28, 2014)

If the evidence of transaction is not reliable, it shall be excluded from necessary expenses.

(as in the judgment of the first instance court) If it is suspected that the evidence of transaction that was not submitted at the investigation stage is submitted after the fact is submitted, etc., the disposition of imposition excluding it from necessary expenses is legitimate.

Article 19 of the former Income Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 11611, Jan. 1, 2013)

Gwangju High Court-2015-Nu-6926 ( April 21, 2016)

Kim 00

00. Head of tax office

Gwangju District Court Decision 2015Guhap318 Decided October 24, 2015

2015.09.10

2015.24

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The Defendant’s global income for the year 2012 that reverts to the Plaintiff on February 7, 2014

The imposition of tax KRW 114,059,490 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the instant disposition

A. The Plaintiff is an individual entrepreneur who runs the business of selling landscape trees in the trade name of 294, Dong-dong, Gwangju-dong, 290.

B. The Defendant: (a) determined the investigation period from October 0, 2014 to December 31, 2012 with respect to global income tax to be conducted by the Plaintiff from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012; and (b) determined that the Plaintiff’s purchase amount of the materials for the period, which was included in the necessary expenses at the time of filing global income tax return for the year 2012, cannot be deemed as necessary expenses (=00 won for the purchase amount of the materials for the report - KRW 000), welfare expenses, and other sales expenses (=00 won for the actual purchase amount of 00 won for the materials for the report - KRW 000).

C. Accordingly, on February 7, 2014, the Defendant issued a correction and notification of KRW 000 of the global income tax for the year 2012 (including additional tax, and the Defendant did not impose an amount less than 000 won) to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an objection with the commissioner of the Regional Tax Office on May 7, 2014. However, the commissioner of the Regional Tax Office dismissed the Plaintiff’s objection at that time. The Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on August 26, 2014, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on November 28, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul's evidence Nos. 1 through 6, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In calculating the Plaintiff’s global income tax attributed to year 2012, the Defendant recognized only KRW 000,000, out of the purchase cost of trees for which the Plaintiff reported, as necessary expenses, and did not recognize it as necessary expenses on the ground of excessive appropriation. However, in addition to the purchase of trees recognized by the Defendant, the Plaintiff purchased trees equivalent to KRW 000,000 in total from KRW 15,000 in the global income tax period belonging to the year 2012 as indicated in the following table, and paid the said amount by cash and account transfer, etc.: Provided, That on the ground that KRW 00, which managed the Plaintiff’s agricultural bank account, informed the Plaintiff of the fact that part of the purchase price of trees purchased in 2012, was late, and the evidentiary evidence verifying such fact was delayed, the Plaintiff only submitted evidentiary materials at the tax trial request stage on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to report the purchase price of trees for global income tax belonging to the year 2012, and thus, the Defendant did not recognize it as necessary expenses excessive.

B. Relevant statutes

As shown in the attached Table related Acts and subordinate statutes

C. Determination

1) In an administrative litigation seeking revocation of a taxation disposition on the ground of its illegality, in principle, the tax authority bears the burden of proof as to necessary expenses or deductible expenses, which are the basis of the determination of taxable income. However, since matters concerning necessary expenses or deductible expenses are generally favorable to the taxpayer, and most of the facts constituting the basis thereof are difficult for the tax authority to prove, it may be deemed that the taxpayer need to prove if it is reasonable to allow the taxpayer to prove by taking into account the difficulty of proof or equity between the parties concerned (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Nu8192, Sept. 26, 1997; 2010Du4599, Oct. 31, 2013). Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s excessive disposal of 100 won based on the above legal principles, based on the evidence presented above, recognized the Plaintiff’s excessive appropriation of 200 won as necessary expenses (including the Plaintiff’s 14 through 14, 18, and 3100 won).

○ The Plaintiff submitted only the transaction statement in 2012 in the course of the personal integration investigation conducted by the Defendant from January 13, 2014 to the 29th day of the same month, and the filing of an objection against the instant disposition. The Defendant decided that the Plaintiff excessively appropriated KRW 000 of the purchase price of trees by comparing the purchase price of raw materials under the Standard Cost Statement submitted by the Plaintiff at the time of filing the global income tax return for 2012 with the purchase price of raw materials and the said transaction name list. Accordingly, the Plaintiff signed a written confirmation that the excessive appropriation of KRW 000 on January 28, 2014 was confirmed.

After ○, the Plaintiff submitted data, such as a sales contract of trees, confirmation document, receipt, etc., to the Plaintiff during the tax judgment process. As to the submission of evidentiary data delayed thereafter, the Plaintiff’s submission of evidentiary data.

No. 100,000 later than

However, it is argued that the notice was given on the purchase of trees in 2012 and its payment.

The plaintiff asserted that 00 had been managed at the time of the integrated personal investigation by 2012

not only submitted the details of annual transactions but also the account in the name of the plaintiff himself/herself at any time.

The plaintiff can inquire about the details of transactions of the above agricultural bank account or get a re-issuance of the passbook.

It is difficult to accept the above argument as it is.

○ The Plaintiff is equivalent to KRW 000 from No. 11 and 11 at the stage of filing an objection.

at the tax trial stage, 200 others and 11 persons

From 100 won to 100 won to purchase trees, and 00 won to the first instance court.

The plaintiff argued that he purchased trees equivalent to KRW 000 from 11,000, and that he purchased trees in the trial.

The plaintiff argued that he purchased trees equivalent to KRW 000 from Park 00 and 15 others.

The plaintiff's assertion is inconsistent with the contents of the plaintiff's assertion.

○ In order to establish that the Plaintiff’s total amount of KRW 000 is the additional purchase price of trees

Materials, such as a contract for the sale of trees, a certificate, and a receipt withdrawn, shall be as follows:

may not exclude the possibility that an ex post facto or would have been made in a false manner, and a part of the amount shall

Over 2012, it was recognized as necessary expenses for the global income tax taxable period.

① As to part 00

Recognizing that the Plaintiff paid 000 won in cash to Park 00 on September 5, 2012

There is no objective financial data, and only the statement in Gap evidence 2-2-2 is about 00 and 00.

the receipt (A No. 2) is insufficient to acknowledge that there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the receipt has been made.

on the date stated in paragraph (4) of this section, there is a trace of modifications, and the aggregate of the tree amounts stated in the receipt shall be the same.

00 won in total, 000 won in trees claimed by the Plaintiff to have paid to Park 00

(i) Cash 000 won + Account transfer 000 won) is different.

(2) As to the part No. 00

Recognizing that the Plaintiff paid 000 won in cash to Nowon 00 on October 8, 2012

There is no objective financial data, and only the statement of Gap evidence 3-3 (written confirmation) shall be 00 and 100

In addition, there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact of the operation, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(A) No. 3-1) does not indicate a contract date, but in the receipt (Evidence 3-5 of the A)

The plaintiff asserts that the total sum of the trees stated above is KRW 000,000,000.

It is different from the total sum of 000 won of cash + account transfer 000 won).

(3) As to part 00

Recognizing that the Plaintiff paid 1,200,000 won in cash to Hu0 on October 0, 2000

money stated in the receipt (Evidence A No. 4-3) of February 8, 2013, for which no objective financial data exists, and entered in the receipt of February 8, 2013.

Amount of KRW 0 million, which the plaintiff claims that the plaintiff had paid to Hu00 on February 8, 2013, shall be the trees amounting to KRW 0 million.

It is different from KRW 0 million.

④ As to 00 parts

Recognizing that the Plaintiff paid KRW 0 million in cash to 00 on October 25, 2012

There is no objective financial data, and only 3 statements in Gap evidence 5-3 have 00 and 00 have been engaged in a partnership business.

The statement of transactions (A No. 5) is insufficient to acknowledge that there is no other evidence to acknowledge that

the date stated in section 2(b) of the certificate and entered in the column of supply of the statement.

Amount (000 won) and the amount (000 won) in the aggregate column, and the contract for the sale of trees (A) and the contract for the sale of trees (A);

The amount as stated in subparagraph 5-1) is different from each other.

(5) As to the part 00

Recognizing that the Plaintiff paid KRW 0 million in cash to Cho Jong-soo on August 30, 2012

There is no objective financial data, and the amendment is made on the date stated in a contract for the sale of trees (No. 6-1).

In addition, in the case of a tree sales contract and a receipt (No. 6-4), the signature and date of 00

It is well-known to be '000000' even though the back of the resident registration number of 00 is '00000'.

(1) Any other item sales contract, a statement of transaction (No. 6-2) and a receipt.

The number of items stated is different from 40 weeks, 46 weeks, and 48 weeks, respectively.

(6) On 100 parts

Gap evidence 7 3, 19-1 of evidence 3, 19-1 shall not be less than 00 and 00

It is insufficient to recognize that the business has been conducted, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

7. A certificate of 00 persons (No. 7) that has been modified on the date mentioned in paragraph (2).

3) The date of preparation (as of January 7, 2013) and the purport of the receipt (as of January 7, 2013), but written confirmations

on the same day as the receipt has been signed by a fixed 00 seal, and the receipt has a fixed 00 signature.

It is difficult to believe that fakes have been drafted.

(7) Ad hoc 00 parts

The signature and seal of 00 is omitted in the statement of transactions (No. 8).

In addition, the seal of 00 affixed on the receipt (No. 20 No. 1) and the contract for the sale of trees (No. 8)

1) A seal of 00 affixed on the seal shall be different.

(8) As to the part 00

Table of the date of contract and the details of transaction stated in the contract (Evidence A 9-1) of trees sales contract (A)

9.2. Each modification has been made on the date stated in 9.2, and the statement of the above transactions shall be 00.

The name and seal are omitted. In addition, the seal of 00 affixed on the receipt (No. 21 No. 21) shall be affixed.

It is different from the seal of 00 affixed on the tree sales contract.

(9) Ad hoc 00

The delivery certificates (No. 10) with a signature and seal of 00 affixed to the delivery certificates (No. 10);

A. A. A. 22-1 of a certificate or receipt (a. 22-1) accompanied by a copy of a 00 identification card or a certificate of seal impression

does not have any record.

(10) With respect to leap00

In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 8

Over 00 won on September 28, 2012, KRW 0 million on September 28, 2012, KRW 0 million on October 4, 2012, and KRW 16,000 on November 16, 2012.

Although it is recognized that a total of KRW 0 million was paid on January 4, 2013, and KRW 0 million,000,000,000, on the other hand,

According to the above evidence, the sum paid by the Defendant from September 28, 2012 to November 16, 2012

The fact that it is also recognized as necessary expenses of global income tax for 20 million won belonging to 2012

C. Furthermore, the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 11-1 and 14 alone are as follows: (a) KRW 0 million on January 4, 2013;

It is insufficient to recognize that it is a tree sale price in 2012, and there is no other evidence to recognize it.

(11) Regarding Kim Tae-tae

From May 26, 2012 to November 25, 2012, the Plaintiff’s present to Kim00 on nine occasions.

There is no objective financial data to acknowledge that a sum of 000 won has been paid, whichever is 0 million won.

On May 26, 2012, the Plaintiff claimed as the date of the contract for the sale of trees on October 15, 2012.

The transfer is also a contract for tree sales (No. 12 No. 12 of the A), a statement of transaction (No. 12 of the A), and confirmation

The signature and seal of Kim00 shall be omitted in the letter (No. 12-3) and the statement of transactions shall be written.

The date of the second transaction is October 15, 2010, which the plaintiff claims as the date of the contract for the sale of trees on October 15, 2012.

It is different from each other.

(12) For about 00 parts

Gap evidence No. 13-2 00 and Lee 00 were operated together with only the descriptions of Gap evidence No. 13-2

It is insufficient to recognize it, there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and 00 and 00 marbling were operated in partnership.

there is no evidence to prove the facts. In addition, the contract described in the contract for the sale of trees (No. 13-1)

With respect to payment of KRW 0 million on February 8, 2013 at the trial by the plaintiff, there is a trace as modified on the date, and with respect to payment of KRW 0 million at the trial.

The receipt (Evidence No. 24-1) submitted is written as " January 5, 2015".

(13) As to 00 parts

According to the evidence Nos. 27-1, 2, and 28 of the evidence, the Plaintiff’s provision on February 4, 2013

It can be recognized that the bank account in the name of 00,000 won has been deposited in a bank account with no passbook, but prior to such deposit.

The evidence alone presented by the Plaintiff is 18 million won as necessary expenses for the global income tax period belonging to the year 2012.

It is insufficient to recognize the payment of the source.

(14) For the whole0 parts:

The Plaintiff paid 000 won in total to 00 won on seven occasions.

No objective financial data to be recognized exists, and entry in the receipt (Evidence A No. 29-2) dated June 21, 2012

Claim that the plaintiff paid 9.7 million won to the preceding 00 won until June 21, 2012.

The statements in Gap evidence Nos. 29-5, Eul evidence Nos. 4 and 8 are different from each other.

Comprehensively taking account of the purport, the Defendant’s KRW 0 million as of April 3, 2012, KRW 0 million as of April 21, 2012, and KRW 0 million as of April 21, 2012.

24.The fact that one million won is recognized as the necessary expenses of the global income tax for the year 2012.

(15) On 00 parts

In full view of the evidence Nos. 4 and 8’s statements, the Defendant’s entire purport of the pleadings is as follows.

3. 30,00 won as of April 13, 2012, KRW 00,000 as of November 27, 2012, and KRW 200,000 as of November 27, 2012:

The fact that it is recognized as necessary expenses of global income tax is recognized.

(15) As to the Kim00

The Plaintiff paid 000 won in total to Kim 00 for seven times.

No objective financial data to be recognized exists, and set forth in the receipt (Evidence A No. 31-2) dated April 20, 2012.

The received amount is KRW 000, which the plaintiff paid to Kim 00 until April 20, 2012.

Section 000 won claimed (=00 won at the time of contract + KRW 000 on April 20, 2012) is different, and Section B

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statement Nos. 4 and 8, the defendant dated April 20, 2012

00 won, 000 won as of June 14, 2012, 200 won as necessary expenses for global income tax belonging to 2012, respectively.

Recognizing the facts recognized.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed.

As such, the Plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

section 3.