2012west 4704

It is difficult to see that the Plaintiff engaged in real transactions with data merchants, so it is a legitimate disposition that is excluded from necessary expenses.

Inasmuch as the tax invoice received by the Plaintiff was confirmed to be false, and there was no evidence on the purchase of actual oil from the other party, the initial disposition that excluded the oil price based on the purchase tax invoice from necessary expenses is legitimate.

2013Guhap52254 global income and revocation of such disposition

LAAA

head of Dongjak-gu Tax Office

October 8, 2013

December 5, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of the global income tax OOOO for the Plaintiff on August 1, 2012 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From October 1994 to December 2, 2009, the Plaintiff operated a gas station (hereinafter “instant gas station”) under the trade name called “B gas station” from OO-dong OO-dong 433-75 to “B gas station”.

B. The Plaintiff reported the global income tax attributed to year 2009, based on the purchase tax invoice Chapter 4 issued byCC Energy Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “CC Energy”), as listed below, included the value of supply in the global income tax as necessary expenses.

Suppliers

Date of Preparation

Items

Quantity

Value of Supply

Amount of tax

CC Energy

January 31, 2009

Oil low sulfur transit

20,000

OOO

OOO

〃 4

February 28, 2009

Low sulfur Track Track

40,000

OOO

OOO

〃 4

April 30, 2009

Oil low sulfur transit

20,000

OOO

OOO

〃 4

August 31, 2009

Non-carbonate

20,000

OOO

OOO

C. The Deputy Director of the Central Regional Tax Office, upon conducting a tax investigation on theCC energy, confirmed theCC energy as data issued with false tax invoices without real transactions, and notified the Defendant of the data for taxation.

D. Accordingly, on August 1, 2012, the Defendant issued a notice of the supply value of the instant tax invoice by excluding the purchase tax invoices as of January 31, 2009 (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) on the grounds that it was a processing tax invoice received without real transaction, and issued a notice of correction and notification of the global income tax OOO of the global income tax for the year 2009, by excluding the supply value of the instant tax invoice from the necessary expenses of the global income tax (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. On October 31, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on the instant disposition, but was dismissed on December 26, 2012.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff: (a) purchased oil as stated in the instant tax invoice fromCC Energy; and (b) paid the purchase price after transporting it to gas stations; (c) even though the value of supply under the instant tax invoice should be included in the necessary expenses for global income tax for the tax year 2009, the Defendant’s disposition that was not included therein was unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Facts of recognition

1) According to the survey conducted by the director of the Central Regional Tax Office with respect toCC energy,CC energy is a data-based business entity whose business was registered as an oil wholesale business on a systematic basis through multiple tax invoices and evades taxes. However, there was no storage or transport vehicle for operating the oil wholesale business, and it was confirmed that there was only the business that the Korea-F and the employee in charge of accounting, who is the representative director ofCC energy, were on duty to issue oil shipment slips, tax invoices, transaction specifications, etc. while working for the Korea-F and the employee in charge of accounting.

2) In addition, the HanF, the representative director of theCC energy, stated that only by telephone, the Plaintiff entered the order in the GGG Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “GGG”) and made a transaction, such as paying the price in the account, without knowing the process of the transaction and the actual distribution of oil. However, the GG was confirmed as a legal entity for disguised processing sales of the GG.

3) According to the details of the financial transaction investigation conducted by the director of the Central Regional Tax Office of China, the amount of the oil payment deposited into the account ofCC energy was fully transferred to the account of GIST after deducting 2% of the commission and expenses. This amount was confirmed to have been transferred to the account of HHpppvis Co., Ltd., and most of the amount was deposited in cash again through the stage of transfer to the account of III Energy.

4) As a result of inquiry into the shipment details on the shipment slip issued byCC Energy to the Plaintiff on the basis of the shipment date, driver, oil transport vehicle, etc., the orderer is another company unrelated toCC energy, and the final destination of destination was confirmed to be a gas station other than the instant gas station.

5) As a result of the tax investigation onCC energy,CC energy opened a borrowed account at the bank during the second taxable period of value-added tax in 2009 from the first to the second taxable period of value-added tax in 2009, and received a processed tax invoice without any real transaction, such as immediately withdrawing in cash or remitting it to GGG which is a processing purchaser, and received the processed tax invoice during the said taxable period of value-added tax, and the processed purchase amount was an OO personnel, and the processed sales amount was confirmed to have been 93.8% as a approximately OOO personnel, not normal transaction, and thus accused the judicial agency on the data.

6) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff deposited the OOO on January 9, 2009, the OOOO on February 16, 2009, the OOOOO on March 3, 2009, the OOOOO on April 7, 2009, and the OOOO on August 31, 209, respectively.

[Grounds for recognition] The items in Gap evidence 2, 10, Eul evidence 2 and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) In the administrative litigation seeking the revocation of taxation on the ground of the illegality of taxation, in principle, the tax authority bears the burden of proving the legality of taxation and the existence of the taxation requirement. Therefore, in principle, the tax authority bears the burden of proving necessary expenses that constitute the basis of the determination of taxable income. However, since necessary expenses are only favorable to the taxpayer, and the facts that form 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 prove the taxpayer 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 made false without real transactions by the defendant who is the tax authority, and it is proved that the taxpayer's party to the payment was false, and if it is proved that the taxpayer's party to the payment was the actual expenses, it is necessary to prove that it is easy for the taxpayer to present all the data such as account books and documentary evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Nu1697.4.497.4.

2) In light of the above legal principles, the following facts were revealed as follows: (a)CC energy was confirmed as a so-called "data sheet issued only without sale and purchase"; (b) there was no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff was supplied with oil listed in the tax invoice from other companies thanCC energy; and (c) the Plaintiff did not present a book (business day, quantity table, etc.) or a shipment slip issued by similar companies that can verify that the oil listed in the tax invoice of this case was actually stored in the gas station of this case; and (d) the final destination of destination was confirmed as not a gas station of this case, as a result of examining the details of shipment to the oil station, and the final destination of destination was confirmed as a gas station of this case; and (e) there was no evidence to prove that there was a lack of evidence to prove that there was a lack of supply value as to the Plaintiff's actual supply value as a result of the Plaintiff's purchase price.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit.