Distribution and settlement of common purchase tax deduction for concurrent operators;

The Plaintiff did not assert or prove that the tax exemption rate for the instant place of business differs from the tax exemption rate at the time of initial declaration when calculating the ratio of the total value of supply of the tax exemption rate, and thus, there is no illegality in the instant disposition rejecting the instant request for correction. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

Article 4 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2012Guhap15440 Revocation of Disposition rejecting Value-Added Tax Correction

AAA, Inc.

The director of the tax office

October 30, 2013

December 18, 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 rejection disposition against the plaintiff on February 20, 2012 against the second time value-added tax of 2008 against the plaintiff is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. BB (B) concurrently operates a taxable business and a tax-free business and a large-scale discount store. BB (B) from around 2006 to around 2008, established and operated an OO logistics center (hereinafter “instant business”) that performs the role of storing goods sold to the Plaintiff’s stores nationwide from OO-dong to 2008; BB from January 1, 2005 to 11608 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11608, Jan. 1, 2013; hereinafter “the Value-Added Tax Act”) calculated the total amount of tax-free business under Article 5(2) of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23065, Feb. 25, 2012; hereinafter “the Value-Added Tax Act”) by calculating the total amount of tax-free business under Article 208(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act.

D. On January 25, 2012, the Plaintiff comprehensively succeeded to BB’s rights and obligations as a corporation newly established by dividing a large discount store business from BB on May 3, 2011, the input tax amount related to the duty-free business should be divided and calculated according to the tax exemption rate calculated on the basis of the entire business establishment of this case, not the entire business establishment, and the calculation of the duty-free business amount should be based on the non-public notice quantity. In such a case, the pertinent tax exemption rate of the business establishment of this case is 2.21% which is less than 5%, and the common input tax amount generated from the second period from the second period from the 2006 to the 208 period from the 2008 period from the Value-Added Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as “instant input tax amount”) was not subject to the Plaintiff’s request for correction on the ground that the amount should be deducted in full pursuant to Article 61(3)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as “the instant request for correction”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 7, Eul evidence 1 to 7 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The defendant's assertion

The Plaintiff’s claim for correction of the value-added tax of the second period, No. 1, No. 2007, and No. 1, 2008 was filed on January 25, 2012 after the period for filing a request for correction (three years) under Article 45-2(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes was expired. As such, the above claim for correction is unlawful. Ultimately, each of the above value-added tax of the instant disposition is merely an answer for an unlawful request for correction and does not constitute an administrative disposition.

B. Determination

In light of the above facts, the defendant's assertion on the premise that the claim for correction of this case is a claim for correction of the value-added tax for the second period to 2008 or 2008 as the subject of the claim for correction of this case is as mentioned above. Thus, the plaintiff added it without any reason (the plaintiff added it only after the tax exemption rate for the business place of this case was finalized at 2008, and the tax exemption rate for the second period to 2008, which is the taxable period for which the tax exemption rate is determined pursuant to Article 61-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act was determined. The common purchase tax amount reported and paid before that date is settled. It is not limited at the time of the settlement of the common purchase tax amount under the related Acts and subordinate statutes, but it is stipulated that the tax exemption rate is settled in the taxable period for which the above common purchase tax becomes finalized (it can not be deemed that the correction rate is also made during the second period to 2006 or 208 years.).

A. The plaintiff's assertion

"The common purchase tax amount generated from the workplace of this case shall be divided and calculated according to the tax exemption rate for the workplace of this case, which is not the average tax exemption rate for the entire large discount store, and where the logistics agent and the goods supply business are concurrently operated as the workplace of this case, the standards for the value of supply are different (in the case of the logistics agent, the

Since it is unreasonable to uniformly calculate the tax exemption rate according to the ratio of the "value of goods" in the case of the product supply business, it is reasonable to calculate the tax exemption rate on the basis of the "Quantities of goods and duty-free goods". Therefore, the disposition of this case on different premise is unlawful.

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Articles 4(1) and 6(2) of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 15(2) of the Value-Added Tax Act provide that the value-added tax shall be reported and paid for each workplace, and the transfer of goods produced or acquired in connection with his/her own business to another workplace directly for sale is deemed the supply of goods.

In addition, Article 17 (1), (2) 6, and (7) of the Value-Added Tax Act, and Article 61 (1) and (3) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that where an entrepreneur concurrently operates a taxable business and a tax-free business, the input tax amount related to the tax-free business not deducted from the output tax amount shall be calculated based on the actual attribution. However, in cases of a common consignment tax that is commonly used for a taxable business and a tax-free business and thus is not distinguishable from the actual attribution, in principle, the common input tax amount shall be divided according to the ratio of the value of the tax-free supply to the total supply amount, and if the ratio is less than 5/10

On the other hand, Articles 61(4)1 and 61-2(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provide that if there is no supply value for taxable business and tax-free business during the pertinent taxable period or no supply value for any business exists, the common purchase tax amount shall be divided and calculated in proportion to the ratio of the purchase value related to the tax-free business on the total purchase value (excluding common purchase value). In this case, the common purchase tax amount shall be adjusted when the tax amount for the taxable business and the tax-free business is finalized due to the acquisition of the relevant goods, but it shall be calculated in proportion to the ratio of the tax-free supply value to

2) The following circumstances recognized by the language contents, legislative intent, and the purport of the entire argument are as follows: ① Value-added tax is, in principle, paid at each workplace, and internal transactions between the workplace are also regarded as an independent supply of goods and services under the Value-Added Tax Act. As such, the common purchase tax amount must be calculated for each workplace as a matter of course, and the proportion of the tax supply and the tax-free supply value to the total supply value of each workplace should be based on the proportion of the total supply value of each workplace. ② Since the economic transactions between one workplace and another workplace have to have direct and indirect economic effects on another workplace, the principle of taxation by each workplace should collapse if it is introduced the concept of economic effects. Therefore, it is reasonable to determine the liability for the payment of value-added tax on the basis of the value of each workplace supplied to the individual workplace as the principal agent regardless of its economic effects. ③ The instant workplace itself performs its functions of independent supply of goods and services independently from the Plaintiff’s other sales workplace, and the instant workplace is also related to the instant workplace and its entire sales amount belongs to 20080.

However, as seen earlier, Article 17(2) and (6) of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 61(4)1 and Article 61-2 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act on the basis of delegation thereof stipulate that the common purchase tax amount that cannot be divided into actual attribution shall be calculated by the margin of the "total supply price of the relevant taxable period" on the total supply price of the relevant taxable period, and does not stipulate that the tax exemption rate shall be calculated and applied based on separate reasonable standards depending on the type of business, such as distribution agency business and goods supply business. Thus, the issue input tax amount shall be calculated by dividing and calculating the ratio of the total supply price of the relevant business place, and otherwise, it shall not be applied to the calculation and calculation of the tax exemption rate based on other standards, such as "the total supply price of the relevant business place," (see Supreme Court Decision 92Do1615, Jul. 13, 201). Furthermore, the Plaintiff asserted that the initial tax exemption rate is different from the initial tax exemption rate for the place of business place.

Therefore, there is no illegality in the disposition that rejected the instant claim for correction, so the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

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