Article 80 (Determination and Correction of former Income Tax Act)

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. From April 12, 200 to October 4, 2002, the Plaintiff acquired a tax invoice under the name of ○○○○-dong 6, Seoul, to operate construction machinery rental and contracting business from ○○-143, and filed a comprehensive income tax return for the year 2001, by appropriating 74,065,000 won on the supply price of the said tax invoice in the taxable period of 1 and 2 years of value-added tax (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) in the name of ○○ Energy Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○ Energy”).

C. After conducting a tax investigation on ○○ Energy, the director of the tax office having jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s place of business filed an accusation as a partial data, and notified the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s place of business of taxation that the instant tax invoice was issued without a real transaction. The director of the tax office having jurisdiction over the Yeongdeungpo-gu tax office issued the said tax invoice by deducting the input tax amount under the instant tax invoice from the output tax amount, and notified the Defendant of the rectification and correction of the value-added tax for the first and second years

C. Accordingly, on May 1, 2007, the Defendant issued a correction and notification of KRW 43,364,390 of the global income tax for the year 2001, as shown in the attached Table, to the Plaintiff on May 1, 2007, after adding the amount equivalent to the value of supply on the tax invoice of this case to necessary expenses (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3-2, Gap evidence 12-2, Eul evidence 1-1, 2-2, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In 2001, the Plaintiff paid the price by cash or credit card when purchasing oil from ○○ Energy. The fact is that ○○ Construction During 2001’s business performance or the Plaintiff’s use of credit cards in the name of 2001 in 2001. In addition, the Plaintiff failed to submit documentary evidence that purchased oil from ○○ Energy in cash in 2001. However, this is due to the Plaintiff’s failure to submit documentary evidence that purchased oil from ○○ Energy in 2001, and the Plaintiff’s destruction or loss of cash receipts after the lapse of the statutory storage period of the documentary evidence under the Income Tax Act (five years). The Plaintiff did not have actually purchased oil from ○○ Energy in 2001. Accordingly, the Defendant’s failure to conduct an investigation into such factual relations, and thus, the instant disposition of taxation should be revoked on the premise that the instant tax invoice transaction was false or processed.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 27 (Calculation of Necessary Expenses of the Gu Income Tax)

Article 80 (Determination and Correction of former Income Tax Act)

Article 160 (Keeping and Entry of Books of Income Tax of the Gu)

Article 160-2 (Receipt and Keeping of Evidence of Expenditures, etc.)

Article 55 (Calculation of Necessary Expenses for Real Estate Rental Income, etc.)

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) The ○○ Energy was opened on January 27, 2001, but closed on December 2, 2002, and is a oil wholesale and retail company (workplace: ○○○○○-8 in Namyang-si, Namyang-si). As a result of the examination of ○○ Energy from the Namyang tax office to the material suspicion around December 2005, the ○○ Energy was a representative in terms of the ○○ Energy’s business registration. However, in fact, the ○○ Energy was deemed to have operated the ○○ Energy.

(2) Before 2002, Kim Jong-seok stated that the supply value of 100 to 200 per cent of the total supply value was uniformly over 100 to 200 per cent of the supply value as a person who had been accused of having been suspected of having been accused of having been charged to the Chungcheong Police Station on September 30, 2004 on the data as follows.

(3) In addition, as a result of the examination of the Namyangan Tax Office, the ○ Energy started on January 27, 2001 and reported the closure of business on December 2, 2002, but substantial discontinuance of business was made at the beginning of October 2001. On October 5, 2001, the registration of the oil wholesale and retail business operator was made under the trade name called '○○○○○ Gas Station' at the same place of business as ○○ Energy jointly with the Namnam on October 5, 2001, and was made an application for change of the gas station business on May 31, 2002 while operating the gas station.

(4) 남양주세무서는 2001. 1. 1.부터 2002. 6. 30.까지의 기간 동안에 ○○에너지로부터 매출세금계산서를 교부받은 업체들 중 원고가 운영하는 ○○건설중기를 비롯하여 거래금액이 합계 500만 원 이상인 매출업체에 대하여 각기 세금계산서를 수취한 경위를 소명할 것을 통보하였으나, 원고는 냠양주세무서에 아무런 소명자료 등을 제출하지 않았다.

(5) Accordingly, in the Namyang-gu Tax Office classified the sales company that did not reply in spite of the demand to vindicate twice as shown by the Plaintiff as an enterprise suspected of being suspected of being exposed to the data. It acknowledged that the processing sales tax invoice of KRW 2,351,887,00 in total from January 1, 2001 to January 1, 2002 was issued as follows: (i) KRW 1,356,124,00 in 201 + KRW 528,230,00 in 201 + KRW 467,53,00 in 202 + KRW 467,53,000 in 20,856,207,000 in total as follows.

(6) Meanwhile, according to the use of credit cards in the name of ○○○○, the Plaintiff purchased 4,289,000 won from ○○ Energy on May 28, 2001, and purchased 14,798,000 won from ○○ Gas station on December 18, 2001, and 70,000 won from ○○○ Gas station on December 18, 2001. On the other hand, according to the Plaintiff’s 1 and 2 tax invoices (Evidence B No. 5), the Plaintiff received the tax invoices as follows in relation to the purchase of oil from January 1, 201 to December 31, 201.

(7) On May 31, 2002, the Plaintiff reported and paid the global income tax for the year 2001 by means of the simple book, and the Defendant sent a notice of pre-announcement of taxation accompanied by the details of the receipt, tax base, calculated tax amount, etc. of global income tax for the year 2001 before rendering the instant disposition.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3-2, Gap evidence 5, Eul evidence 12-2, Eul evidence 1-3, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 4-1 through Eul evidence 6-3, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) In the administrative litigation seeking the revocation of tax assessment of global income tax on the grounds of illegality, in principle, the tax authority bears the burden of proving the legality of the taxation disposition and the existence of the taxation requirement. As such, in principle, the tax authority bears the burden of proving necessary expenses which are the basis of the determination of taxable income. However, since necessary expenses are only favorable to the taxpayer, and the facts constituting the basis of necessary expenses are most within the control area of the taxpayer, and thus the tax authority is difficult to prove. Thus, if it is reasonable to have the taxpayer prove the burden of proving the burden by taking into account the difficulty of proof or equity between the parties, it should be returned to the taxpayer. Therefore, if it is proved that the tax invoice on some of the expenses reported by the taxpayer was prepared by the defendant who is the tax authority without real transactions, and it is proved that the taxpayer's tax invoice has been prepared falsely without real transactions, and if it is proved that the other party to the payment was false, it is necessary to prove it in the taxpayer's side to present all the data such as account books and evidence (see, e.g., reporting and evidence).

(2) As seen above, in light of the fact that ○○ Energy was recognized as a material portion of the tax invoice issued without real trade for a period from January 1, 2001 to June 30, 202, as seen above, the tax invoice of this case was not accompanied by real trade, and its purpose of use and payment counterpart was proved to a considerable extent by the Defendant that it was false. Therefore, as the Plaintiff’s assertion, it is necessary to prove that the cost indicated in the tax invoice of this case was actually disbursed. Accordingly, even if the Plaintiff purchased oil from ○○ Energy in 2001, it is difficult to acknowledge that the amount purchased from ○○ Energy in 201 was 4,289,00,000 won, and it is difficult to acknowledge that the Plaintiff’s tax invoice of this case was 60,000,000 won or more, and it is not clear that the Plaintiff’s tax invoice of this case was 1,000,000 won or more, and the Plaintiff’s tax invoice of this case was 7.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.