조세심판원 조세심판 | 2011-02-28 | 조심2010중2115 | 부가
early 2010 Heavy2115 ( October 28, 2011)
The claimant shall be deemed to have supplied construction services of a building on issues independently for business, such as the fact that it is recognized as a business scale that may create added value, and the disposition by the disposition agency is legitimate for the disposition to register the claimant ex officio and impose related value
【Person Liable for Tax Payment】 Article 2 of the Value-Added Tax Act
The appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of disposition;
A. Although the claimant filed a transfer income tax return on an OOO multi-household (hereinafter referred to as “marketed building”) by the OOOOO, the claimant stated the contract as the contractor of the building at issue (hereinafter referred to as “marketed building”) but did not file a related business registration and value-added tax report.
B. On December 17, 2009, the disposition agency made ex officio registration of the claimant as a business entity under the Value-Added Tax Act, and corrected and notified the claimant of value-added tax of KRW 64,180,720 in 203.
C. The claimant raised an objection on February 23, 2010 and filed an appeal on June 9, 2010.
2. Opinions of the claimant and disposition agency;
A. The claimant's assertion
Although the agency uses the contract document as evidence for taxation, (1) although the address of the claimant, who is the contractor under the contract, is stated as OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, but the address of the claimant as of May 20, 2003, which is the contract date, is the date of the contract, the address of the claimant is OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, the owner of the project, whose address is 198 address of the claimant for the report for the transfer income tax, and (2) the seal of the contractor's OOOO that has not affixed the seal of the owner of the project, means that the owner of the project has employed and used the claimant while conducting the construction under his/her jurisdiction, and (3) the conditions for temporary payment after the completion of the contract are considered to have not been received after the completion of the contract, it is not required to be revoked as the owner of the project.
(b) Opinions of disposition agencies;
The contract amount of KRW 385,410,00 (the supply price of KRW 350,372,727) is imposed on the claimant's own signature and seal affixed to the contract document notified by the head of the OO head of the tax office, and it is difficult to regard the contract document as a false contract document because there is no terms and conditions of payment and any defect-guaranteed securities in the contract document. The requirements for value-added tax imposition are satisfied when the entrepreneur independently supplies goods, etc. for business, and the entrepreneur does not have to continuously and repeatedly supply the goods. The applicant is the contractor of the construction work under the contract document submitted by the OOO when the owner of the building files a transfer income tax return, and the key building has the business form that can create added value as the contract amount of KRW 385,410,00,000, which is a five-story building with the scale of the five floors, and thus, the initial disposition that the applicant independently supplied the goods for business is justifiable.
3. Hearing and determination
A. Key issue
The adequacy of the taxation disposition made by deeming that the claimant independently supplied the construction work for the housing at issue;
B. Relevant statutes
Article 2 of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9268, Dec. 26, 2008); (1) A person who supplies goods (referring to goods prescribed in Article 1; hereinafter the same shall apply) or services (referring to services prescribed in Article 1; hereinafter the same shall apply) independently for business regardless of whether a taxpayer is liable to pay value-added taxes (hereinafter referred to as "business operator") shall be liable to pay value-added taxes pursuant to this Act.
Article 7. (1) The supply of services shall be either the provision of services or having others use goods, facilities, or rights on all contractual or legal grounds.
C. Facts and determination
(1) According to the resolution of correction of value-added tax, etc., the head of the O tax office concluded a contract for construction of the building at issue with the OO on May 20, 2003 and confirmed the construction of the building at issue in accordance with the fact that the claimant entered into a contract for construction of the building at issue on May 20, 2003 and the OO on December 17, 2010 that the OO was awarded a subcontract for construction of the building at issue and registered as the claimant's own authority, and the OO imposes KRW 64,180,720 on the claimant on December 17, 2010.
Dodice petitioner's assertion that he/she performs field supervision for a period of five months and is merely an employee who is not a contractor, and this is examined.
㈎ OOO이 쟁점건물 양도소득세 신고 시 제출한 민간건설공사 표준도급계약서에 의하면, 쟁점건물신축공사는 지상5층 규모의 주택 및 상가를 2003년 6월에 착공하여 2003년 10월에 준공하는 공사로서 도급인 OOO과 수급인 청구인이 2003.5.20. 도급계약을 체결하였고, 계약금액은 385,410,000원으로서 설계(감리) 및 각종 제세공과금, 하자보수비 일체가 포함된 금액이며, 기성부분금은 준공 후 각 주택에 대한 전세보증금 등으로 지급하고, 하자담보책임은 법률에 의하여 발급되는 하자보증증권으로 하며, 지체상금율 및 대가지급 지연이자율은 없고, 청구인만 계약서에 날인한 것으로 나타난다.
㈏ 쟁점건물 건축물대장에는, 쟁점건물의 건축주 및 공사시공자가 모두 OOO으로 기재된 것으로 나타난다.
㈐ 국세청전산자료에 의하면, 청구인은 2001년부터 2008년까지 근로소득이 발생하였으나, 쟁점건물 건축기간인 2003년 6월부터 10월까지의 기간 중에는 근로소득이 발생하지 않았고, 쟁점건물과 관련된 청구인의 사업자등록 이력은 없는 것으로 나타난다.
㈑ 위 사실관계 등을 살펴보면, 쟁점도급계약서는 청구인이 자필서명한 계약서로서 계약서에 기재된 청구인의 주소가 계약체결 당시의 주소가 아니라거나 대금지급증빙 및 하자보증증권이 없다고 하여 허위의 계약서로 보기 어려운 점, 건축주인 OOO이 양도소득세 계산시 증빙으로 제출하여 취득가액으로 인정받은 점, 건축주 OOO이 허위의 계약서로 인정한 사실이 없는 점, 사업자가 사업상 독립적으로 재화 등을 공급하면 부가가치세 과세요건이 충족되는 것이지 계속적, 반복적으로 재화를 공급하여야만 과세대상이 되는 것으로 볼 수 없는 점(OOO OOOOOOOOOO OO OOOOOOO OO, OO OO), 쟁점건물은 5층 건물로서 도급계약금액이 385,410,000원에 이르는 용역제공인바, 부가가치를 창출할 수 있는 사업규모로 보이는 점 등으로 보아 청구인은 사업상 독립적으로 쟁점건물의 공사용역을 공급한 것으로 보아야 할 것이다. 따라서 처분청이 청구인을 직권으로 사업자등록하고 관련 부가가치세를 부과한 처분에는 잘못이 없는 것으로 판단된다.
This case shall be decided as ordered in accordance with Articles 81 and 65 (1)2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, because the petition for a trial has no merit as a result of the review.