조세심판원 조세심판 | 2010-05-03 | 조심2009중3180 | 부가
[Request Number] Trial 2009 Jung3180 ( May 4, 2010)
[C]Supplementary (Form of Decision) Correction
[Summary of Decision] The main point of Decision is that it is reasonable to re-examine whether there is a good-faith trading party, since the main point of Decision is credibility of the argument that the goods are traded in
[Related Acts and subordinate statutes] Tax amount paid under Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act / [Scope of the purchase tax amount]
[Reference Decision] Trial Decision 2013bu0835/ Trial Decision 2013bu06/ Trial Decision 2013bu0806/ Trial Decision 2013bu0834/ Trial Decision 2013bub878
[Determination following Decision] Trial Decision 2013bu0835/ Trial Decision 2013bu0806/ Trial Decision 2013bu0834/ Trial Decision 2013buak2878
The disposition of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 1,265,316,780 for the first term of 208, the second term of 2008, the second term of 2008, the second term of 143,748,500 for the second term of 2008, which the claimant received from OO in the first taxable period of value-added tax of 2008, shall be 1,499,90,000 won for the supply value received from OO in the first taxable period of value-added tax of 2008, and 92,8960,000 won for the supply value received from OO in the second taxable period of value-added tax of 208, and shall be reviewed whether the claimant falls under a good faith transaction party, and shall correct the tax base and tax amount by correcting
1. Summary of disposition;
A. On November 10, 2007, the claimant was engaged in the scrap metal processing business at OO, was issued a tax invoice of KRW 1499,908,000,000 from OOO (hereinafter “OO”) in the first taxable period of value-added tax in 2008, and filed a return on the relevant input tax amount from the output tax amount after deducting the supply amount of KRW 92,8960,000,000 from OO (hereinafter “OOO”) in the second taxable period of value-added tax in 2008, when the value of supply is 11,8999,000,000,000 won from OO (hereinafter “OOO”) and the foregoing OO was combined, and filed a return on the relevant input tax amount from the output tax amount.
B. On July 16, 2008, the disposition agency conducted an on-site investigation on the refund of value-added tax to the claimant. On April 16, 2009, the issue tax invoices received by the claimant from the key trader were deemed as false tax invoices, and thus deducted the relevant input tax amount. On April 16, 2009, the disposition agency corrected and notified the claimant's value-added tax amounting to KRW 265,316,780, and KRW 143,748,50 for the second period of 208.
C. The claimant appealed and filed an appeal on August 18, 2009 through an objection on May 19, 2009.
2. Opinions of the claimant and disposition agency;
A. The claimant's assertion
In the first and second taxable periods of the Value-Added Tax in 2008, the disposition agency considered the transaction price of 1,87,3780,000 won traded with four companies of the OOOCO in normal transactions, while the transaction with the major trading office was different from the fact of the supplier. However, the fact that the claimant purchases scrap metals from the main trading office and paid the price to the main trading office is confirmed according to the details of the passbook transaction. The manufacturer transported the OO, the scrap metals purchased from the OO were transported by the OO, the OO was transported by the OO, each place and the company's scrap metals purchased from the OO was confirmed according to the guidance list, and the disposition office decided that the claimant was guilty of the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, but the disposition disposition is revoked, and even if the supplier on the value-added tax invoice verify the issue differently from the fact, the registration certificate and the representative of the trading office should be confirmed as the trading company's bona fide director and the trading office.
(b) Opinions of disposition agencies;
The representative of the OO in the name of the 2008 OO or the actual business operator purchased 1490,000,000 won from three persons other than OOOO in the first VAT taxable period in 2008, and confirmed that the transaction price was paid by OO. The first sales amount of OO in 2008 is KRW 93,00,000,000,000 won, while the purchase amount is KRW 30,000,000,000,000 won in the first half of 2008. According to the first half of 2008, it is difficult for OOO to view the supply price of 118,99,000 won in normal transactions sold by the applicant as the normal transaction, it is difficult for OOO's representative to recognize the transaction partner's real value-added tax as the taxpayer's manager, and thus, it is difficult for the contractor to view that it was a good-faith's duty of care.
3. Hearing and determination
(a) Points in dispute;
Whether the claimant can be seen as a bona fide transaction party in connection with the transaction on other issues tax invoices.
(b) Related statutes;
(1) Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9268 of Dec. 26, 2008) (2) The following input tax amounts shall not be deducted from the output tax amount:
1-2. An input tax amount, in case where the tax invoice as provided in Article 16 (1) and (3) is not delivered, or the whole or part of the matters to be entered under Article 16 (1) 1 through 4 (hereinafter referred to as a "necessary entry item") is not entered or entered differently from the fact on the delivered tax invoice: Provided, That the input tax amount in such case as prescribed by the Presidential Decree shall be excluded;
(2) Article 60 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21148 of Dec. 3, 2008) (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21148 of Dec. 3, 2008) 【Scope of Purchasing Tax Amount] and (2) 1-2 proviso of Article 1
2. Where some of the necessary entries of the tax invoice delivered under Article 16 (1) of the Act are erroneously entered, but the fact of transactions is confirmed in view of the relevant tax invoice and other necessary entries or discretionary entries;
C. Facts and determination
(1) In February 2009, the agency has conducted and prepared an investigation into the person suspected of being suspected of being the claimant’s material facts and details of the report are as follows.
(A) The OO opened on November 1, 2007 and engaged in the non-ferrous metal wholesale and retail business in OO, but the 1st value-added tax settlement revenue in 2008 was closed ex officio on the ground that the place of business does not exist on June 19, 2008, and the 1st value-added tax settlement revenue in 2008 was limited to 30,0390,000 won or purchase tax invoice, and was returned and paid without value-added tax after the deadline on January 20, 2009. Thus, the tax invoice of 11899,000 won received by the claimant from OO cannot be deemed as a normal transaction. However, there was no detailed investigation as to whether the claimant fabricated financial data.
(B) On January 2, 2008, the OO was a corporation closed ex officio on August 31, 2008, which was engaged in wholesale and retail business, and reported and paid without payment after the deadline for the first value-added tax in 2008. The representative director's name was investigated as OO which is the representative director of the OO company. The OO was established with the name of the OO, and the OO was stated that it was issued with the name of the OO under the direction of the OO, and the OO was issued with the tax invoice under the name of the OO, and the O was sent to the applicant, and it was deemed that the OO was opened with the OO's account transaction that was most favorable in normal transactions, so there was no specific investigation as to whether the applicant's transaction was conducted with the fact that the applicant was confirmed as the processed transaction of 1490,980,000 won which was received from the value of the OO.
(C) The OOO was a corporation closed ex officio on June 30, 2008 on the ground that there was no place of business even after it started business on January 8, 2008, and the head of the OOO issued a tax invoice of 92,8960,000 won to the applicant during the second taxable period of value-added tax in 2008. However, according to the OO's former last day (the date of December 29, 2008, January 9, 2009), the OO was not engaged in the scrap metal collection business, and it was stated that it deemed that there was no real transaction after establishing several financial accounts, and that there was no specific investigation as to whether the applicant fabricated the financial data. However, there was no detailed statement on whether the OO operated the financial data.
(2) On May 19, 2009, the claimant asserted that the transaction on the issue tax invoice was normal transaction, and filed an objection with the director of the regional tax office of OOO on May 19, 2009, and on June 12, 2009, the director of the regional tax office of OOO decided that the disposition office did not err in deeming the issue tax invoice as a disguised tax invoice different from the fact by the supplier.
(A) According to the claimant's statement of the applicant's entry into and departure from the trading accountO of the O bank, the claimant was confirmed to have transferred the amount of the scrap on the issue tax invoice to the OOO to five times from February 1, 2008 to June 23, 2008, 164,90,000 won, and 1.22,1950,000 won, and 301.660,000,000 won, in total, from July 22, 2008 to October 9, 2008.
(B) However, the claimant online transfers the purchase price of scrap metal to the key traders, and it appears that the key traders withdraw it and pay the price to the actual purchasing place. Since the OO's actual business operator was confirmed to be OO, the disposition agency did not err otherwise by deeming the issue tax invoice as a disguised tax invoice different from the fact that the supplier is a false supplier.
(3) On the other hand, the claimant sent a notice of the reason for non-prosecution to the claimant on November 24, 2009 in relation to the case in which the disposition office filed an accusation against the OOO prosecutor in violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act. The reasons are as follows.
(A) In view of the fact that some of the statements by the claimant are supported by the claimant's assertion, and that the claimant was actually subject to a tax investigation on suspicion of receiving the processed tax invoice from the data, and that the actual transaction was conducted on suspicion of receiving the fictitious tax invoice by the actual transaction party and another company, the details of the claimant's sales were not recognized as normal transaction, and that the OO submitted a statement to reverse the statement of the processed tax invoice, the fact that the main transaction party in the transaction transaction did not purchase, but is suspected of excessive sales, and that some statements by the OO and the OO of the witness alone are insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the claimant's assertion was followed and there was insufficient evidence to acknowledge the fact that there was no other evidence to prove the crime.
(B) According to the OO’s notarized statement submitted at the time of the suspect interrogation and investigation of the suspected violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act by the claimant, the OOO, an actual business operator of the OOO, stated that the OOO, was in a state of being hospitalized in the OO as well as that the OO gave a statement differently from the fact, at the request of the OO, even though it was stated that the OO was reversed as the normal transaction between the claimant and the OO as the normal transaction.
(4) At the time of the request for a trial, the claimant asserted that the transaction on the issue tax invoice was a normal transaction, and that even if the disposition agency confirmed the issue transaction place as a nominal nominal seller, the claimant constitutes a bona fide trading party, and submitted the following data.
(A) Before trading with the key trading office, the claimant confirmed the contents of the following table in order to verify whether the trading partner is a normal business operator.
1) In other words, in the case of OO among the issues trading agencies, one time transaction was conducted, but the entity visited the place of business and confirmed the goods at the site, and did not receive the business registration certificate or the name of the representative, but remitted the transaction amount to the corporate account after verifying the corporate account.
2) In the case of a transaction with an OO, a business registration certificate was received for the transaction with the OO, and the name of the representative was received for the transaction, but the OO was in contact with the OO, and the claimant visited the office of the claimant with the OO, so the claimant knew the OO as the business director of the company, received the issue tax invoice issued by the OOO representative, and the OO knew that the OO was able to live as a temporary patient for any reason.
(B) The claimant, in order to prove the fact that the above assertion was true, issued at the time of the transaction in this case the business registration certificate of the main trading office, the name of the OOO stated as the representative of the main trading office, and the OO's operation and hospitalization certificate, etc. The claimant's business registration certificate submitted by the claimant is that the goods on the issue tax invoice were issued at the time of transaction.
(C) On the other hand, upon examining the detailed statement of the cost of transport and transportation of the purchased goods submitted by the claimant, the scrap metal purchased from the OO in the transaction on the issue tax invoice was transported by the vehicle of the OOO once, the scrap metal purchased from the OO was transported by three companies outside the OO, and the cost of transport was paid KRW 2,013,00,00, and the scrap metal purchased from the OO was transported by three companies outside the OO, and the cost of transport was paid KRW 3,190,000.
(5) The claimant appeared at the Council of Tax Judges held on February 17, 2010, and presented a statement to the effect that it is impossible to accept the issue tax invoice again as a disguised tax invoice as a result of the fact that it is not a transaction by reporting to and trading with a person who is not a transaction by reporting the goods. The claimant clearly purchased the goods on the issue tax invoice and the transaction price was paid. At the time of the investigation, the disposition agency considered the issue tax invoice as a processed tax invoice and the transaction price was confirmed in the process of filing an objection.
(6)In full view of more than one content;
Although a disposition agency has a transaction on the issue tax invoice, it is difficult to deduct the input tax amount because the issue tax invoice is different from the fact that the supplier is different from the other party's business registration at the time of trading with the other party's trade, representative's name, and the other party's account at the time of trading with the other party's trade. In the case of OO among the issues trading offices, the actual supplier's supplier's identity was not verified, and OO verified as the real business director at the time of trading, and OO was claimed as the company's business director at the time of trading. Due to its nature, it appears that the claimant's explanation that the company is found to be a place outside of the place of business and thus it is true. At the time of trading, at the time of trading, the claimant is deemed to have fulfilled his duty of care as a good manager.
Therefore, it is reasonable to recognize the claimant as a bona fide trading party if there is no objective evidence that the claimant could have known such fact in advance after re-inspection as to whether the main trading party could have known the fact that the OO or a third party supplied the goods without supplying the actual goods at the time of this case.
This case shall be decided as ordered in accordance with Articles 81 and 65 (1) 3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, because the petition for the trial results is well-grounded.