조세심판원 조세심판 | 2012-12-25 | 조심2012서4704 | 소득
[Case Number] Trial Decision 2012west 4704 ( December 26, 2012)
[Items] Global Income [Types of Determination]
[Determination]O’s summary was investigated by 93.8% of the tax invoice issued by 09.1 and 2, and charged as data. The claimant purchased oil from OO at a price lower than that of time, but failed to verify the fact that it was not a kind of oil going through normal distribution procedures. There are no circumstances to deem that the claimant was supplied the oil equivalent to the tax invoice by other transaction parties, not the oil source.
[Related Acts and subordinate statutes] Article 27 (1) of the Income Tax Act / Article 80 of the Income Tax Act
【Reference Decision】 Trial Decision 201Nodu2510
The appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of disposition;
A. On October 26, 1994, the applicant was a participant in the oil station business operated by OOO until the closure of business on December 28, 2009, and the applicant obtained the purchase tax invoice from OOO(hereinafter “Co., Ltd.”) during the 1st VAT taxable period of the value-added tax in 2009 and deducted the relevant purchase tax amount from the output tax amount at the time of filing the return of value-added tax after deducting the relevant purchase tax amount from the output tax amount during the 2nd VAT taxable period of the value-added tax in 2009, and filed a comprehensive income tax return for the year 2009 by including the value of supply in the necessary expenses.
B. As a result of conducting a tax investigation on the issues trading office, the Commissioner of the National Tax Service: (a) considered the OO members other than the OO members among the supply price O members of the first half of 2009 supply price; (b) the OO members of the second half of 2009 (total OO members; (c) or the first half of 2009 supply price as a tax invoice different from the fact that there is no real transaction; and (d) notified the disposition authority of the fact as a tax invoice.
(c)On December 13, 2010, upon receipt of the above data notification, the Administration issued a notice of correction and notification of value-added tax to the claimant on December 13, 2010, as a tax invoice different from the fact that no real transaction was conducted, and thereafter, notified the claimant on August 23, 2012 to correct the global income tax OO of the global income tax attributed to the claimant in
D. The claimant appealed and filed an appeal on October 31, 2012.
2. Opinions of the claimant and disposition agency;
A. The claimant's assertion
In 2009, the claimant purchased 40,000 liters and 60,000 liters of low gasoline and low sulfur transit (20,000 liters of this case, which were purchased on January 9, 2009, and excluding this, 80,000 litress of this case) from the main trading office, and confirmed the registration certificate and the registration certificate for the main trading office's petroleum selling business. The actual purchase of the key oil was verified by the confirmation of the transaction of the main trading office's representative director and the sales division's three drivers who transported the same oil (resident registration certificate, vehicle registration certificate, and business registration certificate attached) and the OO account (242-*-051746) in the name of the main trading office's trading office's name and the fact that the claimant deposited the key amount to the main trading office's transaction, and the taxation of the income tax was unfair solely on the ground that the claimant files an accusation of the key amount as necessary expenses.
(b) Opinions of disposition agencies;
Although the claimant asserts that the oil was actually supplied through normal transactions from the key trading office, the key trading office determined 93.8% of the tax invoice issued from January 2009 to the 2nd preliminary return of value-added tax was a processed transaction and accused of the fact that the oil was delivered to the claimant according to the order of the key trading office, and it is impossible to confirm the oil shipped only in the form of the fact that the oil was delivered to the claimant according to the order of the key trading office, and it is argued that the oil supplier who purchased the oil from the material was accompanied by the real transaction. However, in general, the gas station, which purchased the oil from the material, uses the financial transaction, such as the Internet banking, and thus, it cannot be deemed a real transaction. Therefore, the disposition imposing the comprehensive income tax on the requester by excluding the key amount from the real transaction as necessary expenses is justifiable.
3. Hearing and determination
(a) Points in dispute;
The propriety of the disposition imposing tax without recognizing the issue amount as the sales cost
B. Facts and determination
(1)The findings of the study of the data by the National Tax Service on the issues of the OOO will be as follows:
(A) The key trading office did not have a storage facility or a self-owned vehicle to run the petroleum wholesale business; the representative director and the person in charge of accounting issued a oil shipment slip, tax invoice, transaction specifications, etc.; the representative director of the key trading office and the HanOOOO did not know the fact that he/she performed an independent active activity or role in purchasing oil, such as failing to know the process of oil distribution and the reason why he/she can be supplied with oil at a level lower than the fixed selling price. In addition, in relation to sales, the gas station requested the purchase of oil at the oil at the oil station, (OO) the purchaser (the supplier, who received the oil payment from the gas station and transferred the payment from the oil station through the account transfer, and whether the oil was transported through telephone communications at the driver and the seller.
(B) The amount of oil payment deposited from the gas station to the main trading office is confirmed to have been transferred to the (main)OO after deduction of 2%, and most of the payments were withdrawn in cash through the (main)OO account so as to make it impossible to track funds.
(C) As a result of the inquiry into the shipping vehicle number on the shipment slip issued by the key trading agency and the shipment details by the date, the final shipment price on the shipment slip does not coincide with the delivery place on the shipment slip and the final shipment price on the similar shipment slip. (1)OOO's shipment slip is indicated on the arrival place, type, quantity, vehicle number, and driver, but it is not possible to verify the shipment place and the actual shipment of oil due to lack of major information, such as temperature and density. While the representative director of the key trading agency sold oil oil to the main oil station, he/she is determined to have conspired with the mainOO in order to make it impossible to verify whether it is the actual shipment of oil by delivering it to the main oil station without delivering the oil shipment slip to the main oil station.
(D) Although the key trading office has actually purchased and sold a part of the oil from (OOO) in fact, it received the processed tax invoice from (OO)OO during the 2-year VAT scheduled period from 1st to 2009, and filed an accusation against the key trading office at the investigating office in accordance with the Procedure for the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act by issuing the processed tax invoice for 97 gas stations during the same period.
(2) After investigating the key transaction office, the Commissioner of the National Tax Service confirmed the key transaction office as data and notified the disposition office of the key tax invoices as data confirmation data, and the disposition office notified the applicant of the correction of the 1st value-added tax OOO in December 17, 2010 by deducting the relevant input tax amount from the data.
(3) The data the claimant submitted by asserting that it is a real transaction is as follows.
(A) The purchase tax invoice, specifications of transaction, and details of payment received by the claimant from the key trading office are as shown in Table 1.
(B) On March 5, 2011, the statement of transaction prepared by New OOOO, the head of the business division of the key trading office, stated that the statement of transaction is identical to Table 2, and that the main trading office purchases goods from (OO)OO and (O)OOOO and actually delivers them to the applicant, and that OOO used the vehicle to transport oil, diesel oil, and oil without oil to one oil station in accordance with the direction of the main trading office (in addition to the driver's license, registration certificate, and business registration certificate, etc. of the OO and OOOO) was confirmed that the transportation cost was received in cash at the main trading office.
(4) On July 4, 2011, the claimant filed a request for a trial on July 4, 201 for the said taxation of value-added tax, and “determination of dismissal” (the first instance trial 201Du2510, November 15, 201).
(5) Article 27(1) of the Income Tax Act provides that “The amount to be included in the necessary expenses when calculating the amount of business income shall be the sum of expenses corresponding to the total amount of income in the pertinent taxable period, which is generally accepted and accepted.”
(6) The key trading agent claiming that the applicant purchased the key petroleum is a corporation without any oil storage facility or self-owned vehicle, and filed an accusation in data by 93.8% of the tax invoice issued from the first to the second preliminary return of value-added tax since 2009. The key trading agent verified the business registration certificate and the business registration certificate at the time of the transaction with the key trading agent. However, even though the key petroleum was sold at a price lower than the market price and it was sufficiently recognizable that it would not go through the normal distribution procedure, it was not confirmed. The shipping agent's confirmation letter only states that the applicant was delivered the key petroleum in the course of the purchase of the key petroleum, but it is impossible to verify the shipped oil due to the fact that the Plaintiff could not receive verification of the oil from the material material material, and that the payment of the oil purchased from the material material was made through the Internet banking and the disposition of imposition of 1510% of the tax authority's appeal by taking account of the following circumstances: (i) the fact that the applicant was not subject to imposition of value-added tax by the applicant; (ii)
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 adjudication has no merit as a result of the review.