National Tax Service Review Division 2011-0172 ( November 30, 2011)

The instant tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice by the supplier, and the Plaintiff’s good faith or negligence is not recognized.

Each of the tax invoices received by the Plaintiff constitutes a false tax invoice, and the Plaintiff was negligent in failing to conduct an investigation, although the supplier was aware of the fact or is suspected of being the actual counterparty of the transaction.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2012 disposition of revocation of imposition of value-added tax

CHAPTER A

the director of the tax office of Western

May 25, 2012

June 8, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 000 on June 15, 201 and value-added tax of KRW 000 on January 2009 against the Plaintiff on June 15, 201 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, from March 15, 2006 to 000, operated oil sales business in the name of “GG gas station,” from around 000, Seo-gu Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon, and was issued a purchase tax invoice (hereinafter “each of the instant tax invoices”) from H PH PPero, Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “HH PPE”), and received the tax invoice as follows. The Plaintiff reported and deducted as the input tax amount at the time of the return of the value-added tax return for the first and second years.

B. On June 15, 201, the Defendant issued a tax invoice to the Plaintiff without a real transaction. Each of the instant tax invoices constitutes a disguised processing and purchase tax invoice different from the fact, and decided not to deduct the input tax amount on the transaction portion with the H PP, thereby revising and notifying the Plaintiff of the total amount of value-added tax 00 won for the first term portion of 2009 and value-added tax 000 won for the second term portion of 2009 (including additional tax) (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on October 5 of the same year on July 13, 2011, but the Commissioner of the National Tax Service dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for examination on November 30, 201.

[Reasons for Recognition] The non-sured facts, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Plaintiff actually purchased oil from H PPS and received the instant tax invoice, it cannot be deemed that the instant tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice, and even if the instant tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice, the Plaintiff began transactions after confirming that the Plaintiff registered and directly operated the Kim II agent, and normally transferred the oil at the price supplied to the gas station to HHP, and completed necessary confirmation and evidence expenses for ordinary transactions, such as receiving the tax invoice at the time of the transaction, the specifications, and the shipment slip. Accordingly, the instant disposition made by the Defendant on a different premise is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) Details of the survey on data of the Central Regional Tax Office with respect to H P P P P P PP road

A) On January 8, 2009, HH PPE was an oil wholesaler operating in the place of business with the 000 Jmerdik 00 U.S. Pmerdik 000 U.S. HHPE as its place of business, and the following facts were confirmed as a result of the investigation by the Central Regional Tax Office of HPE with respect to HPE:

(1) Although HHP is an oil wholesaler, the oil storage facility and oil transport vehicle were not owned at all, and the workplace did not keep the account books of oil transactions or the data on drivers, etc.

(2) On the basis of the results of examination conducted by requesting 4 p.m. oil to the gas station by transport vehicle number, and the forwarding slips issued by the orderer and the destination are different, or are confirmed to have no shipping details, do not completely coincide with the shipment details on the shipment slips issued by HH PP. On the other hand, HH PP is prevented from being delivered to the gas station in its selling place, and it is issued by issuing the shipment slips in the name of HPP instead, where it is delivered on the date.

(3) All of the KMML Co., Ltd., the purchasing entity of HHP lines, and the stock company MM energy were verified as a so-called material that falsely issued tax invoices without real transactions.

(4) The oil price that was transferred from the gas station to H P P P P P P P PP is immediately transferred to the supplier of the material store, and the abnormal fund flow that was fully withdrawn in cash was shown.

B) Based on the above facts, the director of the Central Regional Tax Office confirmed that H P P P P P P PP is the material that he/she falsely issues and receives a tax invoice without a real transaction, and filed a complaint against Kim II, an operator of H P PPP and H PP, on the ground that all sales and purchase transactions from January 1, 2009 to March 31, 2010, were the processing transaction.

2) Trade, etc. between the Plaintiff and H Ppetro

A) In trading with H PP, the Plaintiff obtained the business registration certificate, the registration certificate for transported vehicles, and the registration certificate for petroleum selling business, etc., while the petroleum selling registration certificate is a storage facility.

The number of people is written as '9'.

B) In 209 and 271, the Plaintiff received oil from H PPT during the taxable period of the value-added tax, and received tax invoices issued by H PPT, shipment slips and transaction specifications, and remitted oil to H PP to the account within 10 days after receipt of the oil.

C) Unlike those issued by the four major oil refinings, the shipment slips issued by HH Ppet lines were all the official columns, and the shipment time was not indicated in 10. The shipment slips were written in 10.

3) In 2009, the Plaintiff purchased each oil equivalent to KRW 000, the supply value of which is equivalent to KRW 000, NN’s Incheon branch office, and the supply value of KRW 000,000 from the PP Energy Co., Ltd.

[Ground of Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 9, and Eul evidence Nos. 3 through 6, and the whole purport of the pleading

D. Determination

1) Whether the instant tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice

The meaning that the tax invoice of the Plaintiff under the Value-Added Tax Act differs from the fact that the necessary entries in the tax invoice are inconsistent with the actual supplier or supplier of the goods or services despite the formal entries in the tax invoice, such as the transaction agreement, etc., written between the parties to the goods or services (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu617, Dec. 10, 1996). In light of the above legal principles, this case is health, and the following circumstances recognized by the entire purport of the facts and arguments, and (1) H P P P P P P P P P PP is not a data on which the tax invoice was falsely issued and received for the period from January 1, 2009 to March 31, 201, if the entries in the tax invoice were not entered in the tax invoice as H P P PP and H PP, and if the Plaintiff did not actually purchase the portion of the tax invoice as the oil storage facility for the reason that it did not appear to have been entered in the tax invoice for the first time after the sale of the H PP.

2) Whether the Plaintiff constitutes good faith and negligence

(1) The Plaintiff and the actual supplier on the tax invoice may not deduct or refund the input tax invoice for H if they were unaware of the actual name of the supplier, and that those who were supplied with the tax invoice did not know of the fact that they were not negligent in the above fact. The Plaintiff did not know of the fact that the supplier was not aware of the actual name of the supplier, i.e., the number of the supplier’s business and the number of its sales licenses for H 20 years, and that the supplier was not aware of the fact that the supplier was not aware of the fact that the supplier was not aware of the fact that the supplier was not the actual supplier’s trade, i.e., the number of the supplier’s sales licenses for H 6 years, and that the supplier was not aware of the fact that the supplier was not the actual supplier’s sales licenses for 3 years, and that the supplier was not aware of the fact that the supplier was not aware of the fact that the supplier was not the actual supplier’s sales licenses, and that the supplier was not aware of the fact that the supplier was not negligent in light of the above legal principles.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is without merit, it shall be dismissed, and it shall be decided with the order.