[법인세및부가가치세부과처분취소] 상고[각공2012상,502]
In a case where Company A reported and paid corporate tax on the price settled by the supplier pursuant to the “specified Purchase Transactions” as subject to tax credit under Article 7-2(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and the tax authority issued a disposition to increase corporate tax on the ground that the specific purchase price does not fall under Article 7-2(3)1 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, the case holding that the above disposition was unlawful.
In a case where Company A, upon entering into a specific purchase transaction agreement with Company B, filed a report on corporate tax subject to tax credit under Article 7-2(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 7322 of Dec. 31, 2004; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the tax authorities reported and paid corporate tax on the price paid by the supplier pursuant to the “specified Purchase Transaction”, which is a type of transaction for purchasing goods at the time of selling the goods to the customer, the case holding that Article 7-2 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides tax support for improving the payment of corporate tax on the ground that the specific purchase price does not fall under the “purchase price” under Article 7-2(3)1 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 7322 of Dec. 31, 2004; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the tax authorities issued a disposition to increase or decrease corporate tax on the ground that it does not fall under the “purchase price” under Article 7-2(3) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act.
Article 7-2 (1) and (3) 1 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 7322 of Dec. 31, 2004)
Inland, Inc. (Attorney Ba-man et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Head of Mapo Tax Office
Seoul Criminal Administration Act (Supreme Court Decision 2010Guhap16240 Decided August 11, 2011)
January 18, 2012
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under the part against which the order to revoke is revoked. The part exceeding KRW 42,095,496 of the disposition imposing corporate tax belonging to the business year 2001 on the plaintiff on January 3, 2007, exceeding KRW 233,507,720, and KRW 42,720,020 of the disposition imposing corporate tax belonging to the business year 202, and the disposition imposing corporate tax belonging to the business year 265,405,277 shall be revoked.
2. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.
The same shall apply to the order.
1. Details of disposition;
A. The Plaintiff is a company established on February 16, 1982 and operated a Dog Plet store, which operates the business of clothing, food, trial, and miscellaneous production and sales, real estate sale and lease.
B. The Plaintiff reported and paid the corporate tax for the business year of 2001, 2002 and 2003, and the Plaintiff: (a) sold the goods supplied by the supplier using the “specific purchase price” method as indicated in the “specific purchase price” method; and (b) reported and paid the price paid to the supplier by the supplier pursuant to Article 7-2(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 7322, Dec. 31, 2004; hereinafter the same).
Table 1 < Remark 1>
Specific purchase price (cost) for the attached business year included in the main sentence of this paragraph shall be 88,935,170,113 125,788,410,127,417,410,913 128,56,593 2003,73,581,754,15204,5154,515
Specific purchase transaction refers to a transaction in which the Plaintiff entered into a specific purchase transaction agreement with the supplier (No. 7-4) and the Plaintiff purchases goods from the supplier at the time of selling the goods to the customer by specifying the sale amount at the time of selling the goods.
C. On January 3, 2007, the Defendant issued a revised disposition to increase or decrease the corporate tax for the business year 201, 2002 and 2003, as shown in Table 2, on the ground that the amount stated in Table 1 ‘The purchase price (cost)' in Table 1 ‘the purchase price' in Article 7-2 (3) 1 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act is not a ‘purchase price' as stipulated in Article 7-2 (3) 1 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 20017, Jan. 3, 200; Presidential Decree No. 20020, 202 and 2003>
Table 2: Table 2>
본문내 포함된 표 사업연도 신고·납부세액(원) 증액경정세액(원) ①고지세액(원) 2001년 1,704,381,980 1,937,889,701 233,507,720 2002년 2,073,645,513 2,246,365,540 172,720,020 2003년 2,667,321,520 2,965,922,333 298,600,810 합계 ？ ？ 704,828,550
(1) The amount obtained by saving the original unit from the amount obtained by deducting the returned or paid tax amount from the increased or decreased tax amount.
After that, the Defendant corrected corporate tax for the business year 2003 to KRW 2,094,437,933, and refunded 572,883,587 (=2,667,321,520 - 2,094,437,933) to the Plaintiff.
D. On April 13, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a petition with the Tax Tribunal for a trial seeking revocation of a disposition of increase or decrease in corporate tax (hereinafter “Tax Tribunal”). On February 4, 2010, the Tax Tribunal accepted only the assertion on the grounds for the amendment of the said Section (hereinafter “The Tax Tribunal”) and rendered a decision to partially accept the Plaintiff’s petition for a trial.
E. In accordance with the purport of the decision of the Tax Tribunal on February 2010, the Defendant corrected corporate tax of 2003 to KRW 2,061,242,40 [the remaining notified tax amount in the disposition of imposing corporate tax of 2003 January 3, 2007 shall be 265,405,277 won [the remaining notified tax amount in the disposition of imposing corporate tax of 2003 = 265,405,27 won [the remaining tax amount in the disposition of imposing corporate tax of 298,60,810 - 33,195,533 [the remaining notified tax amount in the disposition of imposing corporate tax of 201]]; hereinafter the remaining tax amount in the disposition of imposing corporate tax of 201 is 42,095,496 won which is the tax amount for the portion that the Plaintiff recognizes as not falling under the "purchase price" as stipulated in Article 7-2(3)1 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act];
[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 7 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings]
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion
Article 7-2(1) and (3)1 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act stipulate the purchase price as the price for the supply of goods, and does not impose restrictions on the nature of the transaction that receives the supply of goods. The Plaintiff’s purchase price arising from a specific purchase transaction also constitutes tax credit for the improvement of the company’s bill system under the said provision. The instant disposition is unlawful.
B. Relevant statutes
[Attachment] The entry in the relevant statutes is as follows.
C. Determination
The amount that the Plaintiff paid to the supplier according to a specific purchase transaction constitutes “purchase price” under Article 7-2(1) and (3) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act. The instant disposition that the Plaintiff reported otherwise is unlawful. The reasons are as follows.
① The tax credit system for the improvement of the company’s bill system under Article 7-2 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act was introduced by Act No. 6231, Oct. 21, 2000 to induce a purchasing enterprise to settle the purchase price in a cash manner in order to prevent a case where a small and medium enterprise pays the purchase price by means of a bill of exchange, etc. in order to prevent the default of a bill of exchange. As such, it is necessary to induce the Plaintiff to settle the settlement by means of a simple way, since the Plaintiff may use a promissory note as the settlement means even in the case of the transaction price that is settled by the supplier pursuant to a specific purchase transaction, it is necessary to induce the Plaintiff to settle the settlement by means of a easy way. Accordingly, applying Article 7-2 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act to the settlement price
② Article 7-2(3) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that “The meaning of terms used in paragraphs (1) and (2) is as follows.” The purchase price is defined as “the amount paid for goods supplied by a selling enterprise or services provided by a selling enterprise in connection with its ordinary business activities consistent with its business objectives.” In a specific purchase transaction, the Plaintiff pays for the price of goods supplied by the supplier under the conditions that the supplier may return from the specific purchase transaction by deducting a certain fee from the sale price. In the transaction process, the Plaintiff received a tax invoice from the supplier, “the supplier,” “the Plaintiff,” “the supplier,” and “the Plaintiff,” and accordingly, reported and paid value-added tax (Article 7). Accordingly, the amount settled by the Plaintiff constitutes the amount paid for the goods supplied by the supplier from the supplier in connection with its ordinary business activities and paid for the goods in return.
③ The Defendant also deemed the purchase price for a specific purchase transaction as the Plaintiff’s input tax amount under the Value-Added Tax Act, and included the Plaintiff’s deductible expenses under the Corporate Tax Act (Evidence No. 3 and No. 3). Meanwhile, Article 7-2 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act is a provision on the special case of deducting the amount of tax from the corporate tax. As above, including the purchase price for a specific purchase transaction as the Plaintiff’s deductible expenses under the Corporate Tax Act, and deeming it as the Plaintiff’s input tax amount under the Value-Added Tax Act as the Plaintiff’s input tax amount under the Value-Added Tax Act is premised on the recognition of the transaction between the supplier and the Plaintiff. However, denying the transaction between the supplier and the Plaintiff and excluding the purchase price from the “purchase price
④ In light of the fact that the Fair Trade Commission’s notification provides that large-scale retail store business operators (any person who sells a large-scale retail store with a total size of at least 3,00 square meters at the same store) shall be entrusted with goods and sell inventory goods and return them to a supplier as a specific purchase transaction, the Defendant asserts that the purchase price arising from a specific purchase transaction shall not be deemed a purchase price stipulated in Article 7-2(3)1 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act. Article 2(7) of the said notification provides that large-scale retail store shall be defined as a specific purchase transaction and the inventory goods shall be excluded from the purchase price under Article 7-2(3)1 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act or deductible expenses under the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, or that a large-scale retail store with a specific purchase price shall not be excluded from the purchase price under Article 7-2(3)1 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, which is the one subject to the said notification, for the purpose of interpreting Article 7-2(3)1 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act.
⑤ In the case of a specific purchase transaction, the sales contract of the supplier, the registration of the commodity code, the sale method, the sales price determination, the service control right, etc. are issued to the Plaintiff, and the receipt issued to the customer shall also be issued in the name of the Plaintiff, and credit card commission shall also be borne by the Plaintiff (No. 3 and No.
Therefore, a specific purchase transaction cannot be regarded as a mere consignment sale.
3. Conclusion
The part of the judgment of the first instance against the plaintiff shall be revoked. The disposition of this case shall be revoked.
[Attachment] Relevant Statutes: omitted
Justices Kim Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)