조세심판원 조세심판 | 2013-05-13 | 조심2013중0559 | 부가
[Case Number] High Court Decision 2013J059 (Law No. 14, 2013)
[C]Supplementary Rule ](Type of Decision ]
[Judgment] In addition, it is difficult to deem that the applicant did not know that the transaction was distributed at a low price through abnormal routes due to the characteristics of the wholesale and retail business, and in addition, it is difficult to deem that the applicant did not verify his/her status since the transaction was made by reporting the type of business and goods under the characteristics of the disposition agency in the course of investigation, and stated that the cash transaction agreed to account transfer for the benefit of general evidence or evidence. In light of the above, it is difficult to regard the
[Related Acts] Article 16 of the Value-Added Tax Act / Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act
The appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of disposition;
A. The claimant received a tax invoice of KRW O of supply value from the OOOO (hereinafter “Cos”) during the second taxable period of the year 2010, from an entity that runs an OOO underground 201 to a business that engages in the Roding manufacturing and high-water wholesale business, and reported and paid the value-added tax by deducting the input tax amount.
(b)The Administration, on November 22, 2012, confirmed the dispute tax invoice as false tax invoice according to the taxation data of the Director of the Regional Tax Office of OO that it received the dispute tax invoice from the party at issue which became final and conclusive on the whole data, and issued a notice of correction and notification of the OO of the 2010-year VAT to the claimant;
C. The claimant appealed and filed an appeal on January 4, 2013.
2. Opinions of the claimant and disposition agency;
A. The claimant's assertion
After visiting the place of business located in OOOO 101-2 after the call contact of the director of the key trading office, the representative KimO visited the place of business located in OOOO 101-2, and confirmed the business registration certificate, concluded a sales contract by determining the weight and unit price of the goods (scambling), and paid the price after the issuance of the key tax invoice. Although the other party did not know that the other party was a disguised business, it is improper to deduct the input tax amount of the key trading tax invoice because it was not negligent because the other party did not know that he was a disguised business operator.
(b) Opinions of disposition agencies;
In light of the characteristics of the scrap metal wholesale business, it is difficult to see that the claimant was unable to be aware of the fact that the transaction is distributed at low prices through abnormal routes, and when investigating the disposition agency, the applicant made a transaction by reporting goods in the characteristics of the type of business, without confirming his/her identity, and made a transaction without confirming his/her identity, and made a statement that the cash transaction was agreed to account transfer for the remaining evidence, it is difficult to view that the initial disposition was a good manager.
3. Hearing and determination
A. Key issue
Whether the claimant constitutes a bona fide trading party that has fulfilled the duty of due care as a good manager when receiving the issues tax invoice.
B. Facts and determination
(1) The details of the tax invoices received by the claimant from the key trading office are as shown in Table 1 below, and the input tax amountO andOOOO were deducted from the output tax amount in 2010. This is shown in the National Tax Service’s computerized data and psychological data.
Table 1. Details of receipt of tax invoices on issues
USOOOO,OOO,OO, andOOO for the self-supply of the tax invoice receipt details. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 22583, Nov. 30, 2010>
(2)A review of the data relating to the investigation by the Administration reveals the following facts:
(A) As of the date of the investigation conducted on February 20, 2001, the applicant is placed in place of business at the first floor warehouse (the second floor of the container building) or actual suspension of business of the OOO's container building (the domicile), which is the domicile, and the OOO's regional tax office has started the investigation under suspicion of receiving the second-year supply price tax invoice of the OO's supply price in 2010 from the dispute point where the result of the data investigation conducted by the OOO's regional tax office is determined as all data.
(B) The report of value-added tax by the claimant is as listed below:
(C) The key issue transaction office is an enterprise confirmed by the OOO regional tax office as having performed a diversous transaction between non-data sales office and the KOOOOO, etc., which is the actual sales office as a result of the data survey, and confirmed as a whole data. The claimant received a tax invoice by confirming only a copy of the business registration certificate and a name of the sales office without accurately confirming whether the actual purchasing office is a key transaction office, and it is impossible to purchase the scrap metal from the main transaction office of all the data merchants who received the purchase price only, because it is impossible to purchase the scrap metal from the main transaction office of all the data merchants who received the purchase price.
(D) At the time of the tax investigation, even though the applicant knows that the non-ferrous metal wholesale and retail business is a large part of the transaction, it is traded without verifying identity, and thus, it is stated that the cash transaction was an agreement to account transfer for the remaining evidence.
(3) On November 30, 2010, the claimant confirmed the signboard at the time of visiting the place of business of the main trading office, and submitted a certificate of transaction transaction, measurement certificate, copy of business registration certificate, driver's license and name of the KimOOO's driver's license, confirmation of the owner's husband and the owner of the main trading office of the main trading office, financial transaction evidence, and photograph of the location of the main trading office around August 201, as the document of proof was presented.
(4) Article 17(2)2 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that an input tax amount shall not be deducted from the output tax amount in cases where all or part of the requisite entries are not entered or entered differently from the fact in the delivered tax invoice. In cases where an entrepreneur confirms a business registration certificate of the transaction partner and issues or is issued a tax invoice based on the transaction, even if the transaction partner is determined as a trade partner due to the investigation by the related agency, it shall not be subject to disadvantageous disposition, such as correction or punishment under the Act on the Punishment of Tax-Related Acts.
(5) Comprehensively taking into account the above facts and relevant statutes, the fact that there is no negligence as to the failure of the actual supplier under the Value-Added Tax Act and the supplier of a tax invoice to know the fact that he/she was unaware of the fact that he/she was not aware of the fact that he/she was issued a tax invoice (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002). The claimant has fulfilled his/her duty of due care as a good manager, such as visiting the business place of the main trader and receiving a copy of the registration certificate or the issuance of the registration certificate for the representative KimOOO, etc. However, it is difficult to view that the claimant did not know that the transaction was made at low prices through abnormal routes due to the characteristics of the business in the investigation of the disposition authority, and thus, it is difficult to view that the cash transaction was a bona fide trading party, and thus, it is difficult to deem that the disposition authority did not err in the calculation of the input tax invoice as a good faith.
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.