Whether the exclusion period of imposition of the processed purchase tax invoice is ten years and whether it is actual transaction

The taxation disposition that applied ten years to the exclusion period for imposition for the receipt of the processed purchase tax invoice constitutes fraud or other illegal acts is legitimate, and it is legitimate to deduct the input tax amount for the processed purchase tax invoice for which the actual transaction is not verified, and to correct the corporate tax by adding tax to deductible expenses

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Article 19 of the Corporate Tax Act; Article 66 of the Corporate Tax Act

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Grounds for disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, a businessman operating a soil construction business, a reinforced concrete construction business, etc., received a purchase tax invoice of KRW 3,080,000 for mid-term rental from ○○ Heavy in 197, and reported the value-added tax for the second period portion in 197. The Plaintiff received the purchase tax invoice of KRW 3,080 for the mid-term rental from ○○ Heavy in 1997, and received the purchase tax invoice of KRW 10,735,000 for the second period portion in the purchase tax invoice as the input tax amount. The Plaintiff received the purchase tax invoice of KRW 10,735,000 for the second period portion in the purchase tax invoice of KRW 10,79,00 for the second period in 200 for the supply price of KRW 39,131,000 for the supply price of KRW 39,790,000 for the second period in 20 for each of the above input tax invoice in 203.

B. However, the Defendant notified from the head of ○○ Tax Office that the said tax invoice for the said period was confirmed as processed data. Each of the above tax invoices for the steel industry, ○○ industry, and ○○tech was confirmed as each processed data by the said head of ○○ Tax Office. The Plaintiff denied the Plaintiff’s deduction of each of the above tax invoices for the second period of February 1997, 2002, 1, 2002, and 1, 203, 2003, 202, 203, 207, 209, 207, 207, 305, 207, 209, 207, 305, 207, 209, 207, 207, 2005, 305, 207, 207, 2005, 306, 207, 2005.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) As to the imposition of value-added tax for the second period of 1997

The Plaintiff actually paid KRW 3,080,000 as the mid-term rental fee for the mid-term rental from ○○ mid-term rental period, and the Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax for the mid-term rental period in 2005 was a disposition for which 5 years have elapsed from the exclusion period of national tax imposition.

(2) As to each other’s disposition of this case

Since the Plaintiff paid the price for the actual supply of goods from the ○ Steel Industry, ○○ Industries, and ○○○ Industries through Nonparty ○○○ or Kim○○, the Defendant’s deeming it as a processing transaction and imposing corporate tax and value-added tax is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

The following facts may be acknowledged as either in dispute between the parties, or in part of the testimony as to Gap evidence 3, 4, Gap evidence 37 through 40, Eul evidence 2 through 8, and witness testimony as a whole.

(1) On April 5, 1992, 192, the Plaintiff is a company established for the purpose of building reinforced concrete construction business at ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, ○○○○○○○○, ○○○○○, and ○ Steel industry is a company that contracts construction machinery and leases business at ○○○○○○, ○○○, ○○○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, on April 20, 2003, after its business registration was closed on July 18, 200, ○○○, ○○, ○○○, ○○, and ○○, ○○, ○○, and ○, ○○, a business that discontinues its business of manufacturing steel products, but closed its business on April 28, 2004.

(2) Upon receipt of the purchase tax invoice of KRW 3,080,000 for mid-term rental from ○○ Steel industry in 1997, the Plaintiff reported the value-added tax for the second period portion in 197, and subsequently deducted the value-added tax on the purchase tax invoice from the relevant output tax amount for the pertinent period portion as the input tax amount. Chapter IV of the purchase tax invoice in 2002, including the total value-added tax amount of KRW 10,735,00,000 from ○○ Steel industry, the total value-added tax invoice of KRW 39,131,00 in 203, the total value-added tax invoice 9, the total value-added tax invoice of KRW 11,790,000 in 203, the total value-added tax invoice of KRW 25,890,000 in total from ○○ Industries, and filed a return on each of the said tax invoice in 203,200 each of the said input tax amount.

(3) The head of the ○○ Tax Office issued the purchase tax invoice to the Plaintiff at the end of 1997, which had been issued at the end of 197, on the basis of the result of the investigation of the crime, is a false tax invoice without real transaction, which is a false tax invoice with no real transaction, and filed a complaint with the ○○○ District Public Prosecutor’s Office on June 30, 199, and notified the Defendant of the above fact on July 28, 199. The head of the ○○ Tax Office notified each of the above tax invoices issued to the Plaintiff by the ○○ District Public Prosecutor’s Office. The head of the ○ Tax Office determined the above three companies as a false tax invoice with no real transaction, and notified the Defendant of the above fact on April 19, 205. The Defendant issued each of the above dispositions to the Defendant around June 30, 2005.

(4) The ○○○○○-dong, which is registered as the location of the ○ Steel Industry’s business place, leased the above land to ○○-dong, a stock company, the owner of the above land, and used by the said company. There was no lease of the ○ Steel industry. ○○-dong, ○○○-dong, which is registered as the location of the ○○-dong, the owner, also leased the above land to ○○-dong, the ○○○-dong, the owner of the above land.

(5) As an enterprise manufacturing automobile parts noise machine, the head of ○○, which is neither related to the Plaintiff’s business type nor the Plaintiff’s business type, did not issue a tax invoice to the Plaintiff, and Nonparty ○○ issued and delivered the said tax invoice to the Plaintiff under the name of ○○○○.

(6) On February 2, 2005, the Plaintiff confirmed and notified the Defendant that there was no fact of transaction between ○ Industry and 11,790,000 won in the second quarter of 2003 at the request of the Defendant to vindicate the fact of transaction.

D. Determination

(1) Determination on the imposition of value-added tax for the second period of 1997

According to the above facts, the Plaintiff received a false purchase tax invoice from the ○○ Heavy Period without a real transaction and received a false purchase tax invoice in 1997, which was deducted from the output tax amount for the second period of 197. This constitutes a case of evading or being refunded a national tax due to fraud or other unlawful act under Article 26-2(1)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, so in such a case, the exclusion period of taxation for ten years shall apply. Therefore, the above disposition by the Defendant is legitimate as a disposition for which the exclusion period has

(2) Determination as to each of the dispositions of this case

If a tax invoice on a part of the input tax amount or necessary expenses reported by a taxpayer is proved to have been prepared falsely without a real transaction by the defendant who is the tax authority without a real transaction, and it is disputed as to whether it is an actual cost, and the taxpayer's use of the expenses claimed by the taxpayer and the other party to the payment have been proved to the extent that it is reasonable that such expenses were actually paid, it is necessary to prove it in the taxpayer's position that it is easy to present all the data, such as a book keeping and documentary evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu8192, Sept. 26,

According to the above facts, the ○ Steel Industry and ○○ Industries appear to be a false business entity with no relationship with the Plaintiff because they appear to be a business entity with the Plaintiff because they did not produce or manufacture the goods required for the Plaintiff’s work, and there is no evidentiary data such as the account book. The amount related to this case in the Plaintiff’s corporate account book is limited to KRW 2,100,000, which the Plaintiff transferred to ○○○○ on May 19, 2003 (the Defendant decided to reduce ex officio). However, in full view of the fact that ○○, who was the head of the Plaintiff’s management department, directly paid most of the instant transaction in cash, even if there was a volume of cash transaction with 10,000 or more million won at a time, it cannot be found that the amount would have been used for the payment in the Plaintiff’s corporate account book before and after the payment period, and that ○○ Industries did not have any objective credibility of the Plaintiff’s transaction of goods in the name of ○○ Industries and 100, etc.

Meanwhile, according to the statements in Gap evidence 4 through 16, Nos. 19 through 34, 39, and 40-2, and witness testimony, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff performed several construction works, such as the access road packaging construction on or around 2002 to 00 ○○ Gun and ○○ Gun ○○ Gun ○○ ○○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○, etc., and the sewage hole construction, etc., which are consistent with each of the tax invoices in this case. However, the above facts alone alone are insufficient to deem that each of the tax invoices in this case was arising from real transactions and that such expenses were actually paid, and there is no other evidence to support them otherwise. Thus, each of the above dispositions by the defendant is legitimate.

(3) Therefore, each of the instant dispositions against the Plaintiff is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.