Cho High Court Decision 2012west 4809 (No. 14, 2013)

The expenses shall not be included in the necessary expenses because there is no objective evidence of the purchase expenses for foreign services and the personnel expenses for foreign services.

It is insufficient to recognize that the disbursement of expenses incurred in the purchase of goods outside the country was made because the fact of transaction and the account books were presented as evidence that the disbursement of expenses incurred in the purchase of goods outside the country was made, and this is not objective evidence.

2013Guhap5728 Global Income and Revocation of Disposition

IsaA

The Director of the Pacific District Office

March 7, 2014

April 29, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On August 1, 2012, 2012, the Defendant of the Gu office revoked the disposition of imposition of global income tax OO for the Plaintiff in the year of 2010.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff: (a) was a business operator, who runs a wholesale business in the agricultural and fishery products wholesale market located in the agricultural and fishery products wholesale market located in the Seoul OOO-dong OOO in the trade name of “OOOOO”; and (b) reported on the current status of having purchased the products of OOO from OOO in 2010; and (c) filed a global income tax return with the amount of income belonging to year 2010 as the OOO, and the income tax corresponding thereto as the OO.

B. The Defendant: (a) received explanatory data from AOO from the Plaintiff and AOOO in 2010, and deemed that OOO was appropriated as the necessary expenses of the Plaintiff; and (b) on August 1, 2012, the Plaintiff corrected and notified the Plaintiff of global income tax for the year 2010. On November 7, 2012, the Plaintiff asserted that there was an extra expense at the Tax Tribunal; (b) on May 14, 2013, the Tax Tribunal decided that “the income tax and insurance premium of employees borne by the Plaintiff were included in the necessary expenses, and the tax base and tax amount were corrected, and the remainder of the appeal was dismissed.”

Facts that there is no dispute with recognition, Gap Nos. 1, 2, and Eul No. 1 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

- 3- The Plaintiff purchased work from EOO operated by the OO during the year 2010, and paid the total amount of OO won in cash as of August 2, 2010, and the labor cost for employees, etc., but did not reflect it in the account book. As such, the Defendant did not pay the total amount of income tax after additionally reflecting it as the extra expense and the extra expense. However, following the decision of the Tax Tribunal, the comprehensive income tax was corrected by recognizing only the extra expense as the necessary expense.

In particular, in relation to personnel expenses for employees, the details already reported by the Plaintiff was included in the employee OO or OOO as a staff member for the month, but in fact, the amount was paid to OO or OO members for the monthly salary of OO or OO members for each month, and the OO or OO members for the monthly salary of OO or OO members were additionally paid to OO, and the said matters were entered into the OO or OO members for the monthly salary of OO, but the said several books were found in the course of the instant lawsuit and submitted to the court. Furthermore, the Plaintiff transferred the O that was employed as a daily employee to OO members for the personnel expenses on December 24, 2010.

Therefore, among the employees' personnel expenses, the total sum of the money paid to OO, Gangwon, and the money transferred to OO should be recognized as expenses.

B. Determination

(1) Relevant legal principles

In the administrative litigation seeking the revocation of a taxation disposition on the grounds of illegality, in principle, the tax authority bears the burden of proof as to the legality of the taxation disposition and the existence of the taxation requirement fact. Therefore, in principle, the tax authority bears the burden of proof as necessary expenses which serve as the basis of the determination of the acquisition of the taxation disposition. However, as necessary expenses are more favorable to the taxpayer, and most of the facts that serve as the basis of the determination of the acquisition of the taxation disposition are located in the controlled area of the taxpayer, and thus, the tax authority is difficult to prove. Therefore, in a case where it is reasonable to have the taxpayer prove the burden by taking into account the difficulty of proof or equity between the parties, the necessity of proof should be returned to the taxpayer. Therefore, in a case where the taxpayer omitted the report on the necessary expenses to be

(2) Part of the daily payment

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 3-1 through 3, Lee O-O operated an 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-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-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

However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged in addition to the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, the fact that: (a) a written confirmation of the fact of transactions in the preparation of OO was made after correction and notification of global income tax against the Plaintiff; (b) there is no objective evidence supporting that EO received the above payment; and (c) EO did not report the above payment as sales, the fact of the above recognition alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff paid the above payment as alleged by the Plaintiff; and (b) there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

(3) Part on personnel expenses for employees

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the statements No. 5-1 through 10, No. 7-1, and No. 2, the fact that there are several books indicating the same purport as the Plaintiff’s assertion, and the fact that an OO is transferred from the O account under the Plaintiff’s name to MaO on December 24, 2010 can be acknowledged.

However, in addition to the purport of the entire pleadings, the following circumstances, namely, ① there is no objective evidence, such as financial materials to support the Plaintiff’s payment of additional money as alleged in the above, ② there is no difference between the total amount of 36,000,000 won and the total amount of 2009 won reported by the Plaintiff as employees’ personnel expenses in 2010. On the other hand, it is difficult to easily understand that the amount of OO was omitted from the necessary expenses. ③ If the Plaintiff, who entered the current status of the daily deposit and departure from the account book because it was difficult for the Plaintiff to keep it in books due to lack of necessary materials for the excessive duties, there was a dispute over the existence of extra-paid personnel expenses from the point of November 2012 through the tax trial, it is difficult to find that there was a lack of evidence to support the Plaintiff’s payment of labor expenses under the pretext of the above OO’s daily deposit and that there was a lack of evidence to support the Plaintiff’s payment of labor expenses.

Therefore, all the plaintiff's assertion cannot be accepted, and the disposition of this case is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.