Whether the transfer of a truck license plate or the transfer of a truck license plate can be viewed as a taxable subject to surtax.

Truck number plates

Corporate Tax Act

Daegu District Court-2015-Gu Partnership-20123

P

Head of the Tax Office

January 17, 2017

February 16, 2017

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Cheong-gu Office

The defendant's notification of changes in income amount shall be revoked in both the disposition of each value-added tax and corporate tax imposed on the plaintiffs and the notification of changes in income amount in attached Form 2.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Plaintiff P Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff P”) and Plaintiff C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff C”) are entrepreneurs engaged in general freight trucking services and trucking transport arrangement services at port.

B. From August 12, 2013 to October 26, 2013, the Defendant conducted a partial investigation of corporate tax for the Plaintiffs’ 2008 to 2012 business years (hereinafter “instant tax investigation”) and found the Plaintiffs’ right to use each of the registration number of trucking transport business listed in the table 1 and the table 2, and found that the Plaintiffs failed to file a report even if they were assigned at each price for KRW 205,084,034 and KRW 248,363,636, the Defendant deemed the omission of sales to be deemed the omission of sales and notified the Plaintiffs of the change in the amount of income.

C. The Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with the request for adjudication on March 13, 2014, but were dismissed by the Tax Tribunal on October 8, 2014.

D. Meanwhile, the Defendant initially issued a tax disposition by regarding the registration number of the vehicle of KRW 19,700,000 on the ground that the transfer price of the Plaintiff P was KRW 474,810, and KRW 557,490 for the business year of 2011 as the actual transfer price was verified as KRW 15,70,000 during the instant lawsuit, and notified the Plaintiff of the change in the amount of income to reduce the amount of KRW 3,300,000 for the business year of 2011 (hereinafter “the instant disposition”).

Facts having no dispute over recognition, Gap's statements as to Gap's evidence 1 through 8, 11 through 17, 22, 44 through 47 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul's evidence 1 through 5, 42, and 48, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

(i) argument that the transfer of goods is not a transfer of goods.

In light of the fact that the registration number or registration number plate of a truck for business use is not the plaintiffs' property under the Act, but the goods are not subject to value-added tax or corporate tax, and that the plaintiffs transferred the plaintiffs' business classified by the truck's investment in kind, it corresponds to the "transfer of business" which is not deemed the supply of goods subject to value-added tax, and that the transferee has not paid the transfer price to the plaintiffs under the name of business permission or business rights, etc., the right to extinguish when six months have passed from the date on which the report on the replacement and scrapping was accepted, it is difficult to view that the right to cancel when six months have passed from the date on which the report on the replacement and scrapping was accepted has the value of business rights, and that only the right to permit the replacement

(ii) argument that there exists a non-taxable practice.

Since the tax authorities enforced the Trucking Transport Business Act on January 1, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as the " Trucking Transport Business Act"), it is illegal to conduct a tax investigation on the partial transfer and acquisition of trucking transport business or to impose a tax on it.

3) The allegation of illegality of taxation on individual vehicle number plates

(A) 83 Asia 3426 Vehicles

The transfer of KRW 16,50,000 to the NAC account on October 5, 2010 by M is practically a vehicle dealer’s payment of part of the purchase price for the 81 North Korean vehicle in the name of M, and thus, the Defendant’s taxation based on the premise that Plaintiff P transferred the number plate for the 83 North Korean vehicle in the name of M is unlawful.

(B) the 86-ASEAN vehicles;

Since the Defendant’s KRW 15,50,000, which was determined as the price for the transfer of the number plate of the Gyeongbuk 86 Asia, is related to Plaintiff P, because it is not related to the money related to the 84-arched vehicle that was transferred by the E Truck Co., Ltd. to H on March 18, 2011, the Defendant’s taxation based on the premise that Plaintiff P transferred the number plate of the 86-arched vehicle.

C) 98 Gyeongbuk 98

In light of the fact that there is no financial transaction data that E received KRW 26 million in relation to the 98 Gyeongbuk-gu vehicle, and that Plaintiff P transferred the 99 Gyeongbuk-gu 98 Gyeongbuk-gu 18 to E on February 18, 2011, and thereby, Plaintiff P transferred the 98 Gyeongbuk-gu 99 Track-gu 99 on the 98 Gyeongbuk-gu 98 registration number of Plaintiff P, which became a public number (T.E), and the 99 Track-gu Track-gu 99 was leased and lent and transferred to D on March 4, 201. In light of the fact that Plaintiff P or E did not receive any price from L Co., Ltd., each taxation disposition by each of the Defendant is unlawful.

4) The allegation of illegality of notice of change in income amount

A) In the case of Gyeongbuk-do 83, Gyeongbuk-do, 98, Gyeongbuk-do, Gyeongbuk-do, 99, and Gyeongbuk-do 98, although it is clear that the transfer price of each number plate belongs to J or K, the Defendant shall be deemed to belong to the Plaintiff P, and the Plaintiffs shall be notified of the change in the amount of income. This constitutes a case of misconception of substantial truth, not a clear omission or obvious error in the notice of change in the amount of income; there is no evidence to acknowledge that the transfer price received by J or K was paid to E; even if it is unclear that the transfer price of each house number plate was not the Plaintiff P officer at the time of transfer of each number plate, and even if the Plaintiff P was not actually controlled, in light of Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 101 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24357, Feb. 15, 2013; hereinafter the same).

B) Since the Plaintiff J agreed to receive the payment of the principal and interest of the amount loaned to J, E is merely a repayment of the claim and cannot be subject to notification of change in income amount.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form 3 is as shown in the relevant statutes.

C. Determination

1) Determination on the first argument

A) Article 6(6)2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 7, 2013; hereinafter the same) provides that "a transfer of business, which is not deemed the supply of goods, is prescribed by Presidential Decree," and Article 17(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 24638, Jun. 28, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that "a transfer of business shall be comprehensively succeeded to all rights and obligations related to the business by place of business." In such cases, Article 1(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "any rights and obligations related to the business shall be imposed on transactions falling under each of the following subparagraphs," and Article 17(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "any other rights related to goods or intangible goods, other than the supply of goods and services" shall be included in Article 17(2) of the former Enforcement Decree.

On the other hand, the "transfer of business" that is not considered as the supply of goods refers to the comprehensive transfer of physical, human, and rights and obligations including business property, and the replacement of only the management body while maintaining the identity of the business. Thus, the business must be separated from the management body as an organic combination of human and physical facilities so that the social independence can be recognized. The fact that the object of transfer is not a simple physical facility, but such organic combination is not a value-added tax, and the burden of proof is the taxpayer (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu12778, Jul. 10, 198).

B) The facts acknowledged earlier in light of the above legal principles, and the following facts and circumstances revealed by comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 10, 16, and 17 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the plaintiffs' selling of the cargo license plate for business purposes constitutes taxable objects of value-added tax and corporate tax, since the plaintiffs' selling of the cargo license plate for business purposes constitutes an intangible goods by supplying them, and thus, the plaintiffs' assertion

(1) The sale and purchase of a truck license plate for business use shall be deemed to be the sale and purchase of a "right to use a motor vehicle registration number for the trucking transport business" which actually indicates the relevant license plate.

② After the amendment of the Trucking Transport Business Act on January 20, 2004, the trucking transport business was changed from the registration system to the permission system, in principle, the premium has been formed and actively traded on the number of the existing trucking transport business granted to the previous trucking transport business entity as the new permission and the increased permission are prohibited.

③ In the case of transfer of the number plate of a truck for business use, the ownership of the truck is still owned by the owner of the land, and a part of the right of the land-holding company is transferred to another land-holding company, and it is not a comprehensive transfer of the whole right of the business. Therefore, it is difficult to regard it as a "transfer of the business which is not considered as the supply of the goods under the former Value-Added Tax Act" and rather, it is reasonable to view it as an intangible property with property value as an supply of goods

④ Since the registration number of a truck for transport business is based on the premise that the truck is permitted for the transport business, it seems that the land owner company did not receive the number plate payment from the plaintiffs, but did not take it directly, and that the new land owner company took it over.

Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiffs did not receive the price for the transfer of the number plate solely on the ground that the contract for partial transfer and takeover between the Plaintiffs and the new company that received the purchase price was prepared.

2) Determination on the second argument

Article 18(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "an interpretation of tax-related Acts or practices in tax administration, which has been accepted by taxpayers in general, refers to a wrongful interpretation or practice, which is accepted by a general taxpayer who is not a specific taxpayer, without any objection, to the extent that it is not unreasonable for taxpayers to trust such interpretation or practice. In order to establish such non-taxable practice, there is an objective fact not imposed over a considerable period of time, and the tax authority must have an intention not to impose tax due to any special circumstance even though it knows that it can impose tax on the matter. Such public opinion or intent must be expressed explicitly or explicitly, but in order to establish an implied expression, it must be deemed that the tax authority expressed its intention not to impose tax on the state of non-taxation for a considerable period of time, unlike a mere omission of taxation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Du7855, Sept. 5, 2003; 205Du3585, Dec. 24, 2009).

In light of the above legal principles, it is difficult to view that there was no taxation for the sale of a truck license plate to a trucking business operator prior to the disposition of this case, even if there was no taxation for the sale of the truck license plate, and it is also difficult to view that there was no taxation for a long period of time. Moreover, the circumstances alleged by the plaintiffs alone are sufficient to recognize that the tax authority is able to impose tax, and such intent is not explicitly or implicitly expressed externally. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' assertion on this part is without merit.

3) Judgment on the third argument

A) Relevant legal principles

Unless special circumstances exist, such as that if a tax authority received a written confirmation from a person liable to pay tax to a person who has a certain taxable fact in the course of conducting a tax investigation, such written confirmation may not be readily denied solely based on the evidence of such written confirmation, unless there exist any special circumstances, such as where the written confirmation was forced against the will of the person who prepared the document, or it is difficult to be deemed as evidence of the specific fact due to insufficient details (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Du2560, Dec.

B) As to vehicles north 83 Asia 3426

The following facts or circumstances, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the statements and arguments in Eul evidence Nos. 27, 38, and 39, i.e., (i) the right transfer of the representative of the Mapo Transportation Co., Ltd. at the time of the instant tax investigation, to the effect that the right transfer of the representative was traded with the Plaintiff P on October 11, 2010, the right transfer of the cargo number plate for the 83-hing vehicle's business operation between the Plaintiff P, and K purchased the cargo number plate from the Plaintiff, and the fact that "K remitted the proceeds from supply to E who had been in the actual management of the Plaintiff P from its wife M to its wife at the time," (ii) the right transfer of KRW 17 million to the Agricultural Cooperative account in M on October 5, 2010, the right transfer of KRW 16,500,000 to the Agricultural Cooperative account in the name of the Plaintiff Co., Ltd., Ltd. to receive KRW 27,6500,000.

C) As to the 86-ASEAN vehicles

In light of the following facts or circumstances, Gap evidence 23, Eul evidence 7, 30, 36 evidence and the overall purport of oral argument, i.e., "O. H's representative at the time of the investigation of this case paid KRW 15,500,00 to the E account on February 15, 2011." On the same day, it is difficult to verify the details of financial transactions that O deposited KRW 15,500,000 to the NA's account under the name of Eul; ② it is difficult to acknowledge the fact that the name of the above vehicle was transferred from the plaintiff P to H on December 14, 2010 to the 5th of this case; ② it is difficult to recognize the credibility of the certificate of transfer transfer of the above vehicle to the plaintiff 1,500,000 won after the expiration of the 5th of this case's certificate of transfer from the plaintiff 1 to the 5th of this case's vehicle; ③ it is difficult to recognize the credibility of the transfer of the above 5th of this case's vehicle.

D) As to the vehicles of 98 Gyeongbuk-do

Considering the overall purport of the statements and arguments in Gap's evidence Nos. 25, 26, 49, 50, 52, 53, and Eul's evidence Nos. 31 and 40, the fact that the plaintiff P's border 98 Track Track (1999) was transferred to E after the plaintiff's border 98 Sck Ha (K at the time of representative director's) was transferred to E on February 18, 201, the plaintiff P was transferred to E after the registration number Nos. 98 (T.E) was changed to the registration number Nos. 98 (T. 99) of the plaintiff P, which became the official number No. 98 (T. 99) and transferred to D on March 4, 2011, the plaintiff P's representative transferred 90,000,000,000 won of the plaintiff P's loan No. 98,000,000.

According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that Plaintiff P transferred the registration number No. 98 of Gyeongbuk-do 98, which was the official serial number of Plaintiff P, to J, the borrower, in the amount of KRW 26 million, and that the above vehicle number plate was transferred to D, and there is no financial transaction data related to the transfer price, or that Plaintiff P or E did not receive any payment from L Co., Ltd., there is insufficient reason to reverse the above recognition. Accordingly, this part of Plaintiff P’s assertion is without merit.

4) Judgment on the fourth argument

(A) Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act reports the corporate tax base on the income for each business year under Article 60, or determines or amends the corporate tax base under Article 66 or 69.

If it is clear that the amount included in the calculation of earnings has leaked out of the company, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as bonus, dividend, and other outflow from the company and internal reservation, the amount included in the calculation of earnings shall be deemed to have been disposed of to the person to whom it reverts, and Article 106 (1) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act shall be as dividends, bonuses from disposition of profits, other income, and other outflow from the company according to the following items according to the person to whom it reverts: Provided, That where it is unclear that it is reverted, it shall be deemed to have been reverted to the representative (where an officer who is not a minority shareholder, etc. and persons with a special relationship under Article 43 (8) hold 30 percent or more of the total number of stocks issued or total investment amount of the relevant corporation and actually controls the operation of the corporation, it shall be deemed to have been reverted to the representative, and where there are two or more representatives, the dividends to the person to whom it reverts, if the person to whom it reverts is an officer or employee;

① On May 12, 2011, 15.7, 200 won was deposited in the Daegu Bank account under the name of 1,570,000 won, and around March 28, 201, the borrower deposited KRW 25,570,00 from 20,000 to 30,000,000,000,000 from 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,00.

According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that E serves as an executive officer of Plaintiff P from October 2010, while taking over Plaintiff P’s management right and practically controlled the said company. Thus, even if the transfer price for vehicle license plates, including Gyeongbuk 83, was deposited into a bank account in the name of J or K from March 2011 to January 2013, the actual owner of such transfer income shall be deemed E. Therefore, it is legitimate for the Defendant to dispose of the vehicle license plate of 83, Gyeongbukbuk, etc. as a bonus for E and notify of changes in each income amount. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff P’s assertion is without merit, without examining the remainder of the issue.

B) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments set forth in Gap evidence Nos. 31, 60, and 63, Eul and J prepared a written statement stating that "E around Nov. 24, 2015 and Oct. 2016, "I will lend the amount of KRW 700 million loan, not the plaintiff P, and will be entrusted with the right of management until the money is returned". On Mar. 22, 2016, "I will transfer all the shares of the plaintiff P to E, and withdraw all the shares of the parties, and will not file a civil claim or criminal complaint," and "I will not transfer the shares to 500,000,000 won from the NA's account to 100,500,000,000 won from the NA's account as a security, and the transfer of the shares to 100,500,000 won from the NA's account to 201,000,0000 won from the above account.

However, the above facts are as follows. ① each statement and agreement made between K and E are prepared after the instant lawsuit is filed. Unless there are special circumstances, it is difficult to acknowledge its credibility. ② E extended KRW 150 million from the investigative agency until October 2010 to J, and extended KRW 550 million from the time the J would dispose of the corporation to pay its principal and interest, and it is hard to recognize the credibility of the pertinent agreement to the Plaintiff’s 60 million from the point of view that the agreement was not consistent with the objective of the entire statement and pleading as stated in No. 46. 6 billion from the point of view of the above facts that the agreement was lawful, and it is hard to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s 60 billion from the date of the instant lawsuit to the point of view that there was no evidence to prove that there was a lack of 500,000,000 won in the record of the instant loan and the Plaintiff’s 50,000,000 won in the record of the instant lawsuit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed in entirety as it is without merit. It is so ordered as per Disposition.

shall be ruled.