beta
무자료로 매입하여 매출누락하였다고 보아 과세한 처분의 당부(기각)

조세심판원 조세심판 | 2001-12-03 | 국심2001중1511 | 부가

[Case Number]

National High Court Decision 2001Du1511, Dec. 04, 2001

[Items]

Addition

[Types of Decision]

Dismissal

[Summary of Decision]

According to the last day and written confirmation, it is recognized that the corporation purchased the tax invoice without receiving the tax invoice, so the taxation disposition is judged that there is no other error.

[Related Acts]

Article 21 of the Value-Added Tax Act

【Disposition】

I dismiss the appeal.

【Reasoning】

1. Summary of disposition;

In the special tax investigation of the O-Energy Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "non-claimed Co., Ltd.") other than the counter-party to the claim, the claimant can recover the fact that the claimant purchased the oil of KRW 500,046,818 (hereinafter referred to as "non-claimed Co., Ltd.") from the non-party to the claim and notify the disposition authority of the fact that the claimant purchased the oil of KRW 500,046,818 (hereinafter referred to as "the counter-claimed Co., Ltd.") as non-party to the claim.

The disposition agency, upon the above notification of the director of the regional tax office of the OO, shall be deemed to have purchased the issue amount from the claimant corporation as non-material and shall be deemed to have been 54,950,762 won for the first term portion of value-added tax 198, 27,649,350 won for the second term portion of 198, 1998, 30,911,180 won for the second term of 1998, and 1,805,550 won for the first term portion of 1999, and 19,246,650 won for the year of 198, and 410,890 won for the year of 199.

The claimant appealed against this and filed an appeal on June 7, 2001.

2. Opinions of the claimant and disposition agency;

A. The claimant's assertion

The agency imposed the value-added tax and the comprehensive income tax on this case by deeming the claimant to have purchased the issue amount as the special tax investigation of the person other than the claimant;

Of the key amount, 94,106,00 won (including value-added tax, 46,974,000 won on December 9, 1998, and 20,856,000 won on December 11, 1998, and 25,276,000 won on December 25, 1998) is paid to the foreign corporation by the claimant’s wife to be supplied with oil from the foreign corporation, and the remainder of 45,945,50 won (including value-added tax) is imposed on the claimant on the basis of the statement, etc. of the non-claim corporation, etc., without confirmation of the specific burden of taxation requirements and facts. Thus, this case must be revoked.

(b) Opinions of disposition agencies;

Considering the certificate of passbook transfer amount of KRW 67,830,00,000, which the applicant’s wife purchased and paid oil, the depositee and the addressee are both the applicant and the agent are not the applicant’s wife; and

OO Commissioner of the Regional Tax Office notified the disposition agency of the amount of deposit in the name of the gas station and the amount of deposit in the name of the non-claim corporation (250,953,000 won) and the amount confirmed by the non-claim corporation (322,072,50 won) in lieu of the initial confirmation at the time of the financial investigation of the issue amount, and it is not reasonable to argue that the disposition of this case imposed on the basis of the statement of the non-claim corporation is improper without complying with the submission of all books about the above amount notified by the claimant when the disposition agency revises this case.

3. Hearing and determination

A. Key issue

The propriety of the disposition imposing the value-added tax and the comprehensive income tax on the claimant by purchasing the outstanding amount as non-data; and

(b) Related statutes;

(1) Article 21 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that “The head of a district tax office having jurisdiction over a place of business, the head of a district tax office having jurisdiction over a place of business, or the Commissioner of the National Tax Service shall correct the tax amount or the

1. Where the final tax return is not filed;

2. Where there are any mistakes or omissions in details of the final tax return;

3.The provisions of Articles 3.4. (Omission) are as follows.

(2) In case a person who has made a final return on the tax base under Articles 70 through 72 or 74 falls under any of the following subparagraphs, the head of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment or the director of the regional tax office shall correct the tax base and amount of tax for the year concerned:

1. Where an omission or error exists in the contents of return;

2.The provisions of Articles 1 and 3. (Omission) are as follows.

C. Facts and determination

(1) Examining the contents of the special tax investigation conducted by the director of the regional tax office of OO, it is confirmed that the claimant corporation sold 161.8 billion won in total to 64 business operators (company and individual business operators) such as O energy, etc. for the period scheduled for the second period of 2 through 1999, 197, and that the sales report was only 13.7 billion won in total, and that the amount of normal tax invoice received is merely 39 billion won in total;

In the letter of confirmation on December 24, 1999, the UOO, the real representative of the requesting non-corporate entity, has received payment for petroleum products from the wholesaler during the second and second scheduled period in 197 to 199, and sold petroleum products in the passbook, etc. of the requesting non-corporate entity, and has sold the petroleum products, and has issued a tax invoice normally in accordance with the Sales Scheme of the requesting non-corporate entity, but the remaining amount has been issued by the intermediate merchant, but the tax invoice has been issued by the business entity that requests the issuance of the tax invoice. In the attached detailed statement of sales, the sales statement of the company stated that "the sales amount of KRW 520,932,273 (value of supply) or the amount of tax invoice issued in the OO oil station operated by the claimant for the second scheduled period in 1999 is KRW 20,885,455, and the amount of tax invoice issued is KRW 500,046,818.

(2) The claimant asserts that the plaintiff paid 94,106,00 won (46,974,000 won on December 9, 1998, and 20,856,000 won on December 11, 1998, and 26,276,000 won on December 25, 1998) out of the issue amount to the non-claim corporation was paid to the non-claim corporation by the applicant's wife to be supplied with oil from the non-claim corporation.

It is judged that it is not possible to accept the claimant's claim because the MaOO's purchase of oil equivalent to the above amount is not presented evidence, such as a statement of transaction that can objectively identify the fact that he/she purchased the oil from the off-claim corporation.

(3) In addition, the claimant asserts that 455,945,500 won (including value-added tax) out of the key amount is that the claimant has not purchased oil from the off-claim corporation as non-data, but the claimant has not purchased it as non-data

In light of the fact that the claimant deposited KRW 250,953,00 with the purchase price of petroleum at 19 times during the period from May 9, 1998 to March 6, 199, the applicant has deposited KRW 250,953,00 in the deposit account (OOOOOO) in the name of the UOO in the name of the actual representative of the UOO corporation other than the applicant, the claimant's assertion is not reliable, and according to the "Written Confirmation" prepared by the UOO to the OO regional tax office on December 24, 1999, it is recognized that the claimant purchased the outstanding amount without receiving a tax invoice from the applicant corporation, the disposition authority's taxation is not erroneous.

4. Conclusion

This case is without merit, so it shall be decided as ordered under Articles 81 and 65(1)2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes.