National Tax Service Review Division 2010-0015 (28 May 2010)

An operator of a gas station who has been issued a tax invoice stating different facts by the supplier;

Since the operator of a gas station is negligent in not knowing the fact that the supplier received a tax invoice different from the fact, the disposition of imposing the value-added tax by not deducting the input tax amount is legitimate.

2010 Gohap 11772 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

XX Co., Ltd

O Head of tax office

March 16, 201

30,011.30

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 93,073,979 on November 2, 2009 against the Plaintiff’s head office in 2008, the imposition of KRW 67,126,92 on the second term value-added tax in 2008, and the imposition of KRW 10,014,630 on the Plaintiff’s branch office in 2008, respectively, shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff operates the gas station head office in XX 2 XX Dong, and operates the gas station head office in the same City ○○-dong 573-O.

B. The Plaintiff received a tax invoice with the same contents as the attached Form 1 (hereinafter referred to as “instant tax invoice”) from the Global Energy Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “ XX energy”), and accordingly deducted the input tax amount and reported the value-added tax.

C. On November 2, 2009, the head of the Yangyang District Tax Office determined that the transaction between the Plaintiff and XX energy was a disguised transaction that received only the tax invoice without actual transaction and notified the Defendant of this fact. On November 2, 2008, the Defendant issued a notice of correction and notification of each of the value-added tax amounting to KRW 10,014,630 for the first term portion of 2008 as to the Plaintiff’s head office, KRW 67,126,90 for the second term portion of 2008 as well as KRW 10,014,630 for the Plaintiff’s branch office (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on January 2010, but on May 2010.

28. was dismissed.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 2-1, 2, 3-1 through 5, Evidence Nos. 4-1, 2, 3, 5, 6-1, and 2-1, respectively.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In addition to the Defendant’s failure to prove the existence of the requirement of taxation, the Plaintiff was actually supplied with the oil from XX energy, and accordingly, received the instant tax invoice from XX energy, and accordingly, the instant tax invoice is consistent with the facts. Accordingly, the relevant input tax amount should be deducted.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached 2. The entry in the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

갑 제7, 8호증, 갑 제9호증의 1, 2, 갑 제10호증, 갑 제11호증의 1 내지 6, 갑 제12, 14호증의 각 1, 2, 갑 제17호증, 갑 제18호증의 1 내지 10의 각 기재 및 변론 전체의 취지에 의하면, 원고의 대표자인 김AA가 XX에너지의 대표이사인 장BB로부터 명함, 사업자등록증, 석유판매업 등록증을 교부받은 사실, 원고가 XX에너지 명의의 은행 계좌에 유류대금을 모두 송금하였고, 원고가 작성한 판매일보에 XX에너지로 부터 공급받았다는 유류의 내역이 기재되어 있으며, 그 판매일보가 조작되었다는 흔적이 없는 사실, 운전기사인 정CC이 정유회사의 저유소에서 유류를 싣고 원고의 주유소까지 운반한 사실을 각 인정할 수 있으나 위 인정사실만으로는 원고가 판매일보 상의 일시에 누군가로부터 실제 유류를 공급받았다고만 보일 뿐 XX에너지가 원고에게 직접 유류를 공급하였다고 할 수 없고, 오히려 갑 제15호증의 1 내지 4, 을 제2호 증의 1, 2, 3, 을 제3호증의 1, 2, 을 제4호증, 을 제5, 7호증의 각 1, 2, 3, 을 제8호증, 을 제9, 12호증의 각 1, 2, 을 제13, 14호증의 각 기재 및 변론 전체의 취지에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정 즉 XX에너지는 2008. 3. 5. 석유판매업등록을 한 회사로서 원고와 XX에너지의 거래는 그 직후인 2008. 4. 16.부터 2008. 8. 1.까지 단기간에 이루어진 점, XX에너지가 2008년 제1기 부가가치세 과세기간 동안 유류를 매 입하였다는 세금계산서의 95%이상이 자료상으로 확정된 자들로부터 교부받은 세금계산서인 점, XX에너지는 2008년 제2기 부가가치세 과세기간 동안 매출세금계산서를 24,438,000,000원을 교부하였으나 매입세금계산서는 463,000,000원만 교부받은 점, XX에너지는 파주시 AA면 AA리 331-A에 있는 위험물저장시설을 임대하였으나 그 시설을 전혀 이용하지 않은 점, XX에너지는 2008. 6. 30.경 관할세무서에 사업 장소 정정신고없이 사업장을 옮겼고, 2008. 8.경 고양세무서에 의하여 직권 폐업된 점, XX에너지는 원고로부터 유류대금을 입금받고 현금으로 인출하거나 XX에너지의 다른 통장으로 이체한 후 현금으로 인출하는 등 전형적인 자료상의 거래형태를 취하고 있는 점, XX에너지가 원고에게 경유를 운반하였다는 경기92사XXXX 차량이 정유사들로부터 공급받는 경유은 2만ℓ에 불과한 점 원고는 종전부터 자신에게 유류를 공급해 주던 주식회사 □□아이 소개로 XX에너지로부터 유류를 공급받게 되었다는 것인데 주식회사 □□아이가 2008년 제1기 부가가치세 과세기간 동안 XX에너지로부터 매입하였다는 매입거래분 1,213,000,000원 역시 가공거래로 확정된 점 등에 비추어 보면, XX에너지는 직접 원고에게 유류를 공급하지 않은 것으로 보인다.

On the other hand, the actual supplier and the supplier on a tax invoice cannot deduct or refund the input tax amount unless there are special circumstances that the person who received the other tax invoice was negligent in not knowing the fact of misrepresentation of the name of the supplier, and that the person who claimed the deduction or refund of the input tax amount was not negligent in not knowing the above fact of misrepresentation of the name (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002). In addition, in light of the developments leading up to the issuance and delivery of the tax invoice, the price of the goods or services supplied, the specific route and process of the supply of the goods or services, the recipient’s experience in the trade of the goods or services, etc., and if there were sufficient circumstances that the beneficiary might have doubt as to whether the goods or services are not the data of the supplier in the name of the tax invoice, the beneficiary’s business registration certificate, business facilities, etc. of the supplier, the sales permit of the goods or services, etc. cannot be deemed to have been negligent in the actual name.

In this case, as seen earlier, KimA, the representative of the Plaintiff, obtained the name, business registration certificate, and petroleum retail business registration certificate from the head of XX energy, but recognized as either Gap evidence 9-1, 2, 16-1, 5-2, and 5-1, 5-2, under the following circumstances, KimA, the representative of the Plaintiff, operated a gas station from July 1, 2002 to the Plaintiff, and had been working for a oil refining company for 8 years prior to that, it is difficult to view the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff’s negligence to have a different weight of the oil distribution system. Since, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff did not receive the shipment registration certificate from the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s vehicle on the LAB, Incheon 86,BB, and Incheon 86CC, most of the transportation vehicles on the BB list, which were almost issued from the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff at the time of delivery of the shipment quota to the Plaintiff, it is difficult to view the Plaintiff’s own weight of the shipment of the Plaintiff’s fuel temperature or other import temperature.

Therefore, the instant tax invoice that the Plaintiff received from XX energy is a tax invoice written differently from the fact, and since the Plaintiff was negligent in not knowing such fact, the instant disposition that the Plaintiff did not deduct the input tax amount is lawful.

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.