Whether the customer purchased medical equipment from the customer and received the tax invoice from the material

Unless an objective proof otherwise provided, a disposition imposing a tax by deeming that a tax invoice received from data is a tax invoice issued without a real transaction is legitimate.

Article 80 (Determination and Correction of Income Tax Act)

Article 142 (Determination and Revision of Assessment Standard and Tax Amount)

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 42,887,050 on September 1, 2007 against the Plaintiff was revoked.

1. Details of taxation; and

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by adding up the whole purport of the pleadings to the statements in Gap evidence 1, 2, 3-1, 2, and 7.

A. The Plaintiff included the total supply value of KRW 90,909,091 (hereinafter “the instant tax invoice”) on the purchase tax invoice of KRW 90,909,091 (hereinafter “the instant tax invoice”) received from 00,000,000, in the necessary expenses, in the name of ○○○ Dong, Seocho-gu, Seoul, 000-0, a business operator operating a wholesale and retail business of medical equipment, and in filing and paying the global income tax for 2004.

B. On July 2, 2007, the Defendant notified the Head of Daegu Regional Tax Office of the taxation data that the instant tax invoice was disguised processing data, and corrected the income tax amount by excluding the amount equivalent to the instant tax amount from necessary expenses, and deducted the already paid tax amount. On July 2, 2007, the Defendant corrected and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 42,887,050 of the global income tax for the year 2004 (hereinafter “instant taxation”).

C. On November 30, 2007, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant taxation and filed a request for review with the National Tax Service on November 30, 2007, but was dismissed on February 25, 2008.

2. Whether the instant taxation disposition is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

It was true that the Plaintiff received the instant tax invoice from ○○○○○○○○, but in fact, the Plaintiff purchased medical devices from ○○○○○ System’s royalty (hereinafter “○○○ Medical Equipment”) and received the instant tax invoice, instead of ○○○○○○○ Medical Equipment, which is the supplier of the instant tax invoice, instead of ○○○○○○○○○ Medical Equipment, and thus, the instant amount, which is equivalent to the purchase amount under the instant tax invoice, should be included in the necessary expenses. Therefore, the instant tax disposition, which the Defendant imposed on which the instant amount was otherwise reported, was not included in the necessary expenses, should be revoked since

B. Relevant statutes

Article 80 (Determination and Correction of Income Tax Act)

Article 142 (Determination and Revision of Assessment Standard and Tax Amount)

Article 143 (Estimated Decision and Revision)

C. Determination

In the administrative litigation seeking the revocation of taxation on the grounds of 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 which are the basis of the determination of taxable income. However, since the tax authority is not only favorable to the taxpayer, but most of the facts which form the basis of necessary expenses are located in the controlled area of the taxpayer, and thus, it is difficult for the tax authority to prove it. Thus, if it is reasonable to have the taxpayer prove it by taking into account the difficulty of proof or equity between the parties, it is necessary to return the necessity of proof to the taxpayer. Therefore, if it is proved that the tax invoice for some of the expenses reported by the taxpayer was falsely prepared without real transactions by the defendant who is the tax authority, and if it is proved that the other party to the payment was false, the tax authority should prove the purpose of the cost claimed by the taxpayer and the other party to the payment of the expenses. As such, it is necessary to prove it in the taxpayer’s part of the document keeping and evidence (see, etc.).

In this case, the plaintiff actually purchased a medical device equivalent to the amount of this case from the ○○ Medical Center, and thus the amount equivalent to the amount should be included in the necessary expenses. However, as alleged above, as to the fact that the plaintiff actually purchased a medical device equivalent to the amount of this case from the ○○ Medical Center, it is merely the sales tax invoice that the plaintiff sold the medical device to the ○○○○ Center, etc., and thus, the plaintiff was merely the sales tax invoice that the plaintiff sold the medical device to the ○○○ Center, etc., and accordingly, it cannot be viewed as a direct evidence that the plaintiff purchased the medical device so sold from the ○○ Medical Center, and there is no evidence to acknowledge this differently.

Rather, as alleged by the Plaintiff, even though the Plaintiff actually purchased the instant medical device from the ○○ Medical Board, it did not seem to have any particular circumstance to have received the instant tax invoice as the supplier of ○○○○○○ Medical Board, but according to subparagraph 2-1 and subparagraph 2-2 of subparagraph B, ○○○○○, an operator of ○○○○p, recognized that three copies of the instant tax invoice issued in the future of the Plaintiff, are merely a processed tax invoice without real transactions. The Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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