Whether a tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice

It is against the law that has been filed 91 days after the date of receipt of the decision of national tax adjudication.

Article 8 (Service of Documents)

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax against the Plaintiff on December 21, 2005 of KRW 2,214,750 for the first term of 2003, KRW 20,490,980 for the second term of 2003, KRW 8,089,540 for the first term of 204, KRW 3,334,270 for the first term of 2004, and KRW 15,412,080 for the amount of 204 for the second term of 203.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From October 15, 2001 to February 17, 2006, the Plaintiff, a business operator operating gold products Internet communications sales business from ○○○○○-dong ○○○-dong, ○○○○-○○, a business operator, who received a purchase tax invoice (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) from multiple companies during the taxable period from January to January 2003, 204, after deducting the total amount of value-added tax on the value of supply as listed below from the total amount of value-added tax as listed in the following table, filed a value-added tax return after deducting the total amount of value-added tax on the value of supply for each taxable period from the total amount of value-added tax as the input tax amount. In filing a tax base and tax amount for each corporate tax for the business year from 2003 and 204, these values were included in deductible expenses.

Classification

Taxation Period

Purchase Agency

Value of the purchase tax invoice (total)

1

1, 2003

○○○○ Corporation

14,99,00 won

2

203

○○○○ Corporation

82,538,00 won

○○ Co., Ltd.

61,653,00 won

3

1, 204 1.3

○○○ Rouritius, Inc.

59,199,00 won

B. However, the Defendant deemed that all of the tax invoices of this case were issued without real transactions because the above purchaser fell under the so-called data list. On December 21, 2005, the Defendant determined the total amount of value-added tax and global income tax for each pertinent taxable period including additional tax by deducting each tax amount from the total determined tax amount, and notified the remaining tax amount after deducting each already paid tax amount from the total determined tax amount as the value-added tax and global income tax as indicated below (hereinafter “each disposition of this case”).

Classification

Taxation Period

Value-Added Tax (won)

Global income tax (source)

1

For the first term, 2003

2,214,750

3,334,270

2

For the second period, 2003

20,490,980

3

For the first term, 2004

8,089,540

15,412,080

(In fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1, Eul 1-1 and 5, Eul 2 through 3, Eul 3-1 and 3, Eul 4-1 and 3, Eul 5, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The assertion

The defendant asserts that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful because the period for filing the lawsuit expires.

(b) Related statutes;

[Basic Law on National Taxes]

Article 8 (Service of Documents)

(1) In cases of service by means of information and communications networks (hereinafter referred to as "electronic service"), documents prescribed by this Act or other tax-related Acts shall refer to electronic mail address (where stored in national tax communications networks, referring to the place accessible by means of user identification mark of the holder of the title deed) of the holder of the title deed (referring to the person designated as the recipient of the relevant documents; hereinafter the same shall apply), address or place of business, or office (hereinafter referred to as "electronic service");

Article 56 (Relation with Other Acts)

(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 20 of the Administrative Litigation Act, the administrative litigation under paragraph (2) shall be instituted within 90 days from the date when a decision on a request for examination or adjudgment is notified.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) On February 20, 2006, the Plaintiff filed a request for a trial against each of the dispositions of this case with the Director of the National Tax Tribunal, and the decision was received from the Plaintiff’s father (the father) Kim○ on September 14, 2006 “○○○○○○-dong ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○.”

(2) However, '○○○○○○○-dong ○○-dong ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, which is the place where the above written decision was served, is the address of the Plaintiff stated in the national tax appeal, the instant complaint, and the civil petition for grievance (receiving on January 18, 206).

(In accordance with grounds for recognition, 1, 1-1 and 5, 6-1, 7, 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

C. Determination

(1) Article 8(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "documents prescribed by this Act or other tax-related Acts shall be served to the address, residence, place of business, or office [in the case of service by means of information and communications networks (hereinafter "electronic service"), referring to the electronic mail address (in the case of service by means of information and communications networks, referring to the place accessible by using the user identification mark of the holder of the title deed; hereinafter "resident or place of business"] of the holder of the title deed. However, the service place of the determination of national tax in this case shall be the location of the plaintiff's office or office. The service place of the determination of national tax in this case shall be the location of the plaintiff's father, and Kim ○-○ shall be deemed to have been delegated by the plaintiff with the authority to receive the above decision explicitly or implicitly. Thus, the written decision in this case shall be deemed to have been legally served to the plaintiff on September 14, 2006.

(2) According to Article 56(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, an administrative litigation that seeks revocation or alteration, etc. of a taxation disposition on national taxes shall be filed within 90 days from the date of receipt of the notice of decision on the relevant request for adjudgment.

(3) However, the fact that the lawsuit of this case was brought on December 14, 2006 is obvious in the record, and since the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case only on December 14, 2006, it is apparent that 90 days have passed since September 14, 2006, on which the decision of the national tax adjudication of this case was served, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as the lawsuit filed after the lapse of the time limit for filing the lawsuit of this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, we decide to dismiss the lawsuit of this case and decide as per Disposition.