early 201st century2627 (201.06.08)

Service charges paid to all dancing in accordance with a given payment standard do not meet the requirements of service charges.

If a business operator supplies food services, etc. and pays a certain rate of the price to all employees upon a direct claim from customers as service charges, regardless of who is the employee who provided the relevant services, the amount received as service charges shall be included in the value-added tax base even if it is stated separately from the price of services in credit card sales slip, etc.

Article 13 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Article 48 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act

2012 disposition of revocation of imposition of value-added tax, etc.

LAAA

head of Sung Dong Tax Office

April 19, 2013

May 31, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On May 2, 2011, the Defendant revoked all the imposition of value-added tax, special consumption tax, and education tax as listed in attached Table 1 as one of the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From September 18, 1987 to July 15, 2009, the Plaintiff is a business operator running an entertainment drinking house under the trade name, “BB age club (hereinafter “instant business establishment”) from 000 to 000,” and (b) the Plaintiff received an amount equivalent to 15% of the said amount from the customers admitted to the instant business establishment in return for the payment of liquor, etc. from the customers, and received an amount separately as a service fee for the dances, and reported and paid the tax standard and tax amount of value-added tax and special consumption tax (individual consumption tax) by excluding it from the sales amount of the instant business establishment.

C. From April 6, 2010 to April 19, 2010, the head of the Gangnam District Tax Office determined that the Plaintiff’s comprehensive income tax investigation for the Plaintiff for the year 2006 was justifiable, but the Commissioner of the National Tax Service neglected to review the Plaintiff’s global income tax investigation for the year 2006, even though the service fee, excluding the Plaintiff’s sales, did not meet the requirements for the salary feed to be outside the tax base of the value-added tax and the special consumption tax (individual consumption tax), although the service fee for the Plaintiff did not meet the requirements for the salary feed to be outside the tax base of the value-added tax and the special consumption tax (the individual consumption tax).

D. The director of the Gangnam District Tax Office revised the value-added tax and the special consumption tax for the first and second years in January 2, 2006 according to the above cadastral records, and notified the Defendant of the revision on November 12, 2010, along with the relevant data. After reviewing the credit card settlement details for the business year in December 2010, 2005, 2007, 2008, and 2009, and 2009, the service charges for the above period also did not meet the salary requirements to be excluded from the tax base of the value-added tax and the special consumption tax (the individual consumption tax) and notified the Defendant of the revision.

E. Accordingly, on May 2, 2011, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the added value tax, the special consumption tax (individual consumption tax) and the education tax (hereinafter “each disposition of this case”).

F. 1) On July 11, 201, the Plaintiff filed a request with the Tax Tribunal for a trial on the following grounds: (a) on each of the instant dispositions, the imposition of KRW 000, and KRW 000,000, and KRW 000,000, and KRW 000,00,000, and KRW 000,00,000, respectively, for the second half of 2006, and was dissatisfied with the imposition of KRW 00,00,000, and KRW 00,000,000, respectively; and (b) on June 8, 2012, the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s request.

2) On August 1, 2011, the Plaintiff appealed to the remainder of the disposition other than a request for judgment among the dispositions in the instant case, but the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff’s request on August 25, 201.

[Grounds for Recognition] The non-speed facts, Gap 1, 2, 3, 12 to 18 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply), and Eul 1 to 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff received a reasonable amount of service charges from the customers entering the instant workplace to 15% of the liquor price and liquor price, and paid the above service charges to the dancing workers working at the instant workplace. Therefore, the above service charges should be excluded from the tax base of the value-added tax and the special consumption tax (individual consumption tax). Therefore, each of the dispositions of this case made on different premise is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Table 2 shall be as stated in the relevant statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) The dances at the instant place of business were in charge of duties, such as dancing or dancing with the visitors visiting the instant place of business.

2) Credit card sales slip issued in the instant workplace is written separately from alcoholic beverages, and service charges are about 15% of alcoholic beverages.

3) In the service fee payment ledger (A, 6, 8, and 10) of the instant place of business, the Plaintiff stated that the Plaintiff paid the dances monthly by 00 won multiplied by the number of working hours at each time, and that the amount is less than 000 won (i.e., x00 won per 22 days) and more than 000 won (i.e., x00 won per 28 days). On the other hand, in the status of receipt of service fee for each marina made up on hand (i.e., 7, 9, and 11 evidence), it is stated that 4-7 dances belong to one marina, and that the amount calculated by multiplying the total number of working days at each of the dancings belonging to each month by 90,000 won is received as the representative.

4) The amount of service fees paid to the Plaintiff’s dances according to the above service fee payment ledger in 2006 is 000 won, and the amount of service fees received by the Plaintiff from the visitors admitted to the instant workplace is 000 won, and the amount of service fees paid to the Plaintiff’s dances according to the above service fee payment ledger from 2007 to 2009 is not in accord with approximately 000 won, and the amount of service fees paid by the visitors admitted to the instant workplace is 00 won.

5) The visitors admitted to the instant place of business were directly making payment to the dancing in the name of “heat preserving”.

[Ground of Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1, 4 through 11, and 18, the testimony of the witness O, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1. Article 48(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "the tax base as provided in Article 13(1) includes all monetary value related to other parties regardless of their names," and Article 48(9) provides that "tax invoices shall not be included in the tax invoice, receipt, or credit card sales slip as provided in Article 32-2 of the Act, for which it is confirmed that the service charges of the members of the Class 2 (including free-income earners) who receive them together with the above charges are paid to 10. 2. 1. 2. 2. 2. 1. 2. 2. 2. 3. 1 other than the former Enforcement Decree of the Individual Consumption Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8829, Dec. 31, 2007; hereinafter the same shall apply) includes the amount of service charges of the former Special Consumption Tax Act, which includes the amount of service charges of the latter 10. 2. 3. 1. 2. . . 2. 1. . . . . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . .......... ............................. .....................................................................................................................................................

According to the above provisions, where a business operator and a credit card sales slip, etc. enter the service charges of employees separately from the charges for the provision of his service, the service charges are not included in the tax base of value-added tax and special consumption tax (the individual consumption tax) and in this case, the "employee's service charges" refer to the amount that is paid with the intention to directly belong to the employee who provided the service in question in consideration of intangible services, such as the consumer's speech, behavior, kindness, and consideration, which are provided by the business operator in connection with the provision of service. Therefore, if it is confirmed that the service charges are paid to the relevant employee separately from the charges for the provision of food, accommodation service or personal service, and the payment of the service charges is made to the credit card sales slip, etc., the service charges are not included in the tax base of value-added tax and special consumption tax (the individual consumption tax) but simply and simply, the service charges are included in the credit card sales slip, etc., not included in the tax base of value-added tax and special consumption tax.

2) The following circumstances, i.e., (e., (1) the Plaintiff appears to have received 15% of the total amount of alcoholic beverage payment under the former Enforcement Decree No. 2 under the Value-Added Tax Act, regardless of whether it was danced with 20 or not. (the Plaintiff’s 16th average number of dancing in the instant place of business, and 16 dancing or lessons for all customers who visited the instant place of business under the Presidential Decree No. 166 of the Value-Added Tax Act) by 100. Moreover, it seems that it would be physically impossible for the Plaintiff to provide 2 entertainment service under the former Enforcement Decree No. 106 of the Value-Added Tax Act, and 15% of the total amount of service charges, which were paid to the instant place of business under the Presidential Decree No. 216 of the Value-Added Tax Act, and that the Plaintiff would have received 15% of the amount of service charges separately from the total amount of service charges for alcoholic beverage No. 9.

3. Conclusion

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