Incheon District Court 2012Gudan1966 (2013.05.07)

It is difficult to recognize that real estate brokerage fees equivalent to necessary expenses are paid.

In connection with the sale and purchase of real estate, it is difficult to recognize as necessary expenses in light of the fact that the broker was requested to the person who was aware of the fact that he/she was not a broker, and the commission was allocated to the plaintiff and the person involved in the sale of real estate regardless of the relationship between

Article 97 of the Income Tax Act as necessary expenses, and necessary expenses for transferred assets under Article 163 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

2013Nu16014 Revocation of disposition of imposing capital gains tax

United StatesA

The Director of Incheon Tax Office

Incheon District Court Decision 2012Gudan1966 Decided May 7, 2013

October 2, 2013

October 23, 2013

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 revoked the disposition of the first instance court on January 16, 2012 against the plaintiff on the transfer income tax belonging to the year 2010 (the plaintiff reduced part of the claim in this court).

The reasons for this court's decision are as follows: "The fourth to the fourth to the fourth to the fourth to the second to the fourth to the fourth to the second to the fourth to the second to the second to the second." Since the reasons for the first court's decision are the same as the reasons for the first court's decision, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The plaintiff asserts that the OE members were necessary expenses in this court. However, the OOE members paid to KimB and the OE members paid to KimB from 2008 to 2010 and the OE members paid to KimD again at the request of KimD from the beginning (the testimony of 1 to 3, and 1st instance witnesses of No. 2). It is difficult to understand the progress that OE members were paid in the above manner, and KimB took advantage of the fact that KimD called KimD's name as the head of the plaintiff's secret office (the evidence No. 2-1), KimD did not have earned income, business income, and business income from 208 to 2010 to 2010, and there is no limit to accept the OE members paid for business registration (the evidence No. 3, No. 4-1 to 300, the OE witness's testimony that exceeds 10% of the plaintiff's fee No. 148).1 as the plaintiff's O.48.

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.