Cho Jae-2017-west-2695 ( November 28, 2017)

The disposition of this case excluding the zero tax rate is legitimate, since there are no grounds to recognize the goods sold to the other party as goods subject to zero tax rate.

In light of the fact that there is no disposition document, etc. proving direct transactions between the plaintiff and the opposite contractual party, the document submitted by the plaintiff is unilaterally prepared by the plaintiff, and the total amount of the price for personal goods sold by the plaintiff is different from the amount entered in the foreign exchange account statement, etc., the goods sold by the plaintiff cannot

Article 45-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 25-2 of Enforcement Decree of the same Act

Disposition Imposing Value-Added Tax

Is 00

00. Head of tax office

December 27, 2019

on 04 05 April 2018

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Each disposition of imposition of value-added tax against the Plaintiff on January 9, 2017 by the Defendant is revoked on January 2013, 2013, of the first term portionxx,xx,xx,xx,xx (including penalty tax), and first term portionx,xx,xx,xx (including penalty tax) in 2014, and second term portionx,x,x,xx,xx (including penalty tax) in 2014, and first term portionx,x,x,xx,xx (including penalty tax) in 2015, and second termx,x,x,xx, andxx (including penalty tax) in 2015.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff filed a return on the sales basis of value-added tax for the taxable period from the first to the second period from 2013, as follows, with the trade name of “A”, to the business entity engaging in the sales of medical appliances and beauty art equipment:

Reversion

Total

General Taxation

Tax Base

zero tax base

Sub-committees

Tax Invoice

Other

2013/1

X,x,x andxx

X,x,x andxx

X,x,xx

X,x,xx

X,x,xx

2013/2

X,x,x andxx

X,x,x andxx

X,x,xx

X,x,xx

X,x,xx

2014/1

X,x,x andxx

X,x,x andxx

X,x,x andxx

X,x,xx

X,x,xx

2014/2 presses

X,x,x,x,x

X,x,x,x,x

X,x,xx

X,x,xx

X,x,xx

2015/1

X,x,x,x,x

X,x,x,x,x

X,x,x andxx

-

X,x,x andxx

2015/2 presses

X,x,x,x,x

X,x,x,x,x

X,x,x,x,x

X,x,xx

X,x,x,x,x

Consolidateds

X,x,x,x,x

X,x,x,x,x

X,x,x,x,x

X,x,xx

X,x,x,x,x

B. From September 21, 2016 to October 27, 2016, the director of the regional tax office conducted an integrated investigation of the Plaintiff’s individual entrepreneur (hereinafter “instant investigation”) with respect to the Plaintiff, and thereafter, the director of the regional tax office excluded the application of zero-rate tax rate to the Defendant by taking into account the following: (a) the sum of the Plaintiff’s report from the first to the second half of the year 2013 to the year 2015 as the sum of the zero-rate tax (other division); (b) Xx,xx, andxxxx from the first to the second half of the year 2015 to the year 2015 to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “BB”); and (c) the Plaintiff’s notification of zero-rate tax rate to the Plaintiff from the first to the first half of the year 2013 to the second of the year 2015 to the domestic transaction (hereinafter “domestic tax rate”).

The tax base declared for the zero tax rate and the details of the denied amount;

Taxation Period

Summary of the original report

Analysis of Tax Investigation Results

Original Report

Deniald amount system

zero tax rate father

The reporter of the report

(Tax Rate and Other Portions)

Issue 1 Transactions

Issue 2 Transactions

Recognition of zero Rate

Total

65

X,x,x,x,x

54

X,x,x,x,x

20

X,x,x,x,x

34

X,x,x andxx

11

X,x,x andxx

2013/1

10

X,x,xx

10

X,x,xx

0

0

10

X,x,xx

0

0

2013/2

3

X,x,xx

3

X,x,xx

0

0

3

X,x,xx

0

0

2014/1

13

X,x,xx

13

X,x,xx

0

0

13

X,x,xx

0

0

2014/2 presses

5

X,x,xx

5

X,x,xx

0

0

5

X,x,xx

0

0

2015/1

9

X,x,x andxx

5

X,x,x andxx

3

X,x,x andxx

2

X.x,x

4

X,x,x andxx

2015/2 presses

25

X,x,x,x,x

18

X,x,x,x,x

17

X,x,x,x,x

1

X,x,xx

7

X,x,x andxx

C. Accordingly, on January 9, 2017, the Defendant, applying the general tax rate (10%) to the Plaintiff, excluded the application of zero-rate tax rate to the first and second transactions, and subsequently, made a correction and notification of the value-added tax (including the additional tax) on the second term portion, X,xx,xx,xx, the first term portion,x,x,xx, andxxx in 2013, by applying the general tax rate (10%) to the Plaintiff.

D. On April 7, 2017, the Plaintiff asserted that “(1) zero-rate tax rate shall apply to one transaction at issue in the Tax Tribunal.” (2) The Plaintiff applied 100/110 to the reported tax base related to the first and second transaction, which includes value-added tax, and (3) the imposition of additional tax on non-issuance of the tax invoice is unreasonable. On November 28, 2017, the Tax Tribunal accepted the Plaintiff’s note and rejected the remainder of claims.

E. According to the above decision, the Defendant corrected the tax amount as stated in the purport of the claim on December 15, 2017 by reducing the amount (hereinafter “final disposition of imposing the reduced value-added tax”) (hereinafter “final disposition”).

Facts that there is no dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 1-4, Eul evidence 1-3 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since it is very difficult for China to take normal import clearance, the Plaintiff and BB agreed to trade goods from the Plaintiff in Korea with respect to the first transaction at issue. In fact, the Plaintiff delivered the goods to the domestic shipping company designated by BB, and finally made the goods arrive at BB, upon request of the Chinese shipping company designated by BB.

Therefore, even if there is no objective evidence that the goods were taken out overseas due to the absence of customs documents, such as the import clearance paper, and the domestic business operator who received the goods of the Plaintiff, the instant disposition that excluded the application of the zero tax rate for the first transaction in question

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Article 21 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "the zero tax rate shall apply to the supply of exported goods." Article 21 (2) of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "to remove domestic goods from a foreign country" (Article 21 (1)), "to make a transaction, such as a contract and payment for a contract at a domestic place of business, or the supply of goods through a local letter of credit or a written confirmation of purchase, etc. (Article 21 (2) 1), and Article 31 (2) 5 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26983, Feb. 17, 2016) provides that "one of the items prescribed by Presidential Decree" under Article 21 (2) 3 of the Value-Added Tax Act shall be directly supplied to a foreign nonresident or a foreign corporation (hereinafter referred to as "non-resident, etc.") under a contract with a foreign exchange bank to receive the price in Korean currency, and Article 31 (2) 5 of the goods supplied.

2) The application of zero-rate tax in the value-added tax system is recognized as a matter of principle only for exports to prevent double taxation, and it is recognized as exceptional or restrictive only for exports to domestic consumption in compliance with the national policy purpose of promoting foreign exchange management and the collection of value-added tax to the extent that it does not undermine the order of foreign exchange collection. As such, the pertinent laws and regulations applying zero-rate tax by including goods exported from the country through a purchase confirmation, etc. into the goods exported from the country shall be strictly interpreted, and if the goods are supplied to the domestic company without a purchase confirmation, etc., such transaction shall not be subject to zero-rate tax (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Du2774, May 26, 201

On the other hand, while the burden of proof of the facts of taxation requirement is imposed on the tax authority, the reason that it constitutes export goods subject to zero-rate tax in the imposition of value-added tax belongs to a special reason that exceptionally affects the payment or the decision of refundable tax amount, so the burden of proof is against the taxpayer.

3) In full view of the following circumstances revealed through the overall purport of the statements and arguments set forth in Gap evidence Nos. 5 through 36 (including additional numbers), the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone cannot be deemed as goods subject to the zero-rate tax rate application, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise. Thus, the instant disposition that excluded the application of zero-rate tax rate to one transaction is legitimate.

A) There is no disposition document or export clearance document proving a direct transaction, such as a sales contract, made between BB and the Plaintiff, as the other party to the transaction, with respect to the key one transaction at issue. The Plaintiff submitted a stamp issued by himself/herself to BB with evidentiary materials, but it is merely a mere fact that the Plaintiff unilaterally prepared.

B) Furthermore, the total amount of the goods price stated in the above seal is not only different from the amount stated in the foreign currency transfer account and foreign exchange transaction account statement submitted by the Plaintiff to prove that the Plaintiff was remitted as the goods price, but also the remitter is also a business entity that is entirely different from BB claimed by the Plaintiff as the other party to the transaction.

C) The Plaintiff submitted a tax invoice, etc. issued by the domestic Kwikset Service Company as evidence of the delivery of the goods in question to other domestic companies than BB, but the tax invoice, etc. does not fully state the information on the goods and the other party to whom the goods were taken over, and there is no data to specify the quantity of the goods delivered to other domestic companies and the quantity of the goods actually delivered to BB among them.

D) The translation of the BB receipt certificate submitted by the Plaintiff states that the Plaintiff received all the goods listed in the individual personal seal sheet prepared by the Plaintiff and remitted the price to the remitter by dividing them through the remitter. However, in light of the various circumstances recognized earlier and the fact that the said certificate of acceptance of the goods appears to have been made only on October 2016 when the instant investigation was conducted, it is difficult to believe the contents stated in the certificate of acceptance of the goods.

4) There is no assertion from the Plaintiff as to the illegality of the instant disposition regarding the issues 2 transactions.

3. Conclusion

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