National High Court Decision 2007west0691 (2007.06.07)

Addition

Dismissal

The argument that the tax invoice was actually purchased and received cannot be accepted because the detailed data, such as the statement of transactions following purchase, cash receipts and disbursements, and purchase sales, are not submitted.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act / Article 21 of the Value-Added Tax Act

I dismiss the appeal.

1. Summary of disposition;

The claimant, while engaging in precious metal wholesale and retail business through the opening of October 20, 199, received 16 copies of the purchase tax invoice from the Co., Ltd. (OOOOOO-OO-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-listed, and gold bullion wholesale-listed) for the period from 1st to 2nd, 2003, and received 16 copies of the purchase tax invoice (the total supply price is 35,386,000 won (hereinafter referred to as "market tax invoice"), and received the deduction of the input tax amount at the time of the value-added tax return.

The director director of the regional tax office confirmed that the company issued and issued the tax invoice without any actual transaction, and notified the disposition agency of the fact that the company issued and issued the tax invoice as taxation data based on the above taxation data, and the disposition agency issued a notice of correction of the total of KRW 6,061,450 for the first period 429,040 for the second period 2 years 2001 for the year 2002, KRW 601,920 for the second period 1,476,030 for the second year 2 years 2003, KRW 39,280 for the second period 2 years 2,602,360 for the year 2 years 2,60, and KRW 6,061,450 for the second period 201.

The claimant is dissatisfied with this and filed an appeal on March 2, 2007.

2. Opinions of the claimant and disposition agency;

A. The claimant's assertion

In general, it is unfair that the transaction price of precious metals, such as gold, is paid in cash, even if the claimant confirms that the price of the tax invoice was paid in cash, the disposition imposed by the disposition agency as the processing transaction is unfair.

(b) Opinions of disposition agencies;

Although the claimant asserts that he paid the price of the issue tax invoice in cash from the account of the listed bank (Account Number OOOOOOOOOOOOOO, etc.), it is reasonable to view it as a processing purchase because the sales of the listed company at the time of the investigation by the director of the regional tax office and the representative director were accused of the listed prosecutor's office as well as the actual transaction was not verified by the evidence submitted by the claimant, and thus, it is reasonable to view it as a processing purchase.

3. Hearing and determination

(a) Points in dispute;

OBEAS ACTS ACTSY ACT ACTS AND ACTSORS ACTS AND ACTSORS

(b) Related statutes;

(1) 【Amount of value-added tax payable by an entrepreneur” under Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act (hereinafter “value-added tax amount”) shall be the amount computed by deducting the tax amount under the following subparagraphs (hereinafter “purchase tax amount”) from the tax amount on the goods and services supplied by him (hereinafter “the output tax amount”). Provided, That where an input tax amount exceeds the output tax amount, it shall be the refundable tax amount (hereinafter “tax amount”).

1. The tax amount for the supply of goods or services used or to be used for his own business;

2. The tax amount for the import of goods used or to be used for his own business; and

(2) The following input taxes shall not be deducted from the output tax amount:

1. An input tax amount in case where the list of the total tax invoice by customer is not submitted under Article 20 (1) and (2), or the input tax amount on the portion not entered or entered differently from the fact, in case where the whole or part of the registration numbers or supply values by transaction parties in the submitted list of the total tax invoice by customer is not entered or entered differently from the fact, excluding the input tax amount in such case

1-2. The input tax amount in case where the tax invoice as provided in Article 16 (1) and (3) is not delivered, or the whole or part of the matters to be entered under Article 16 (1) 1 through 4 (hereinafter referred to as the “necessary entry items”) is not entered or entered differently from the fact on the delivered tax invoice: Provided, That the input tax amount in the case as prescribed by the Presidential Decree shall be excluded;

(2) Article 21 of the Value-Added Tax Act (1) The head of a district tax office having jurisdiction over a place of business, the head of a district tax office having jurisdiction over a place of business, or the Commissioner of the National Tax Service shall correct the tax base or

2. Where there are any mistakes or omissions in details of the final tax return;

3. Where the list of the total tax invoice by buyer or the total tax invoice by buyer is not submitted in the final tax return, or all or part of the list of the submitted total tax invoice by buyer is not entered or

C. Facts and determination

(1) The claimant asserted that the listed fund actually purchased the issue tax invoice from the corporation and received the issue tax invoice, and submitted part of the inquiry sheet on the request for non-transaction request for the Obank account (which was in the name of the claimant and the claimant's wife) as evidence of the claim. The issue tax invoice details and the price payment (the amount claimed by the claimant) are as follows.

Details of issues, tax invoices, and withdrawals of passbooks

(amount-unit: Won)

(3) 2,938.201.27 of 201.27 of 201.27 of 201.27 of 201.27 of 201.27 of 203 of 201.27 of 201.27 of 203 of 201.27 of 203 of 201.27 of 2013 of 201.27 of 2013 of 207 of 2013 of 204, 207.12 of 209-13 of 2013 of 207 of 19204, 207.29 of 207.29, 207.29, 2004 of 207.27.29, 2004

(2) The claimant does not separately submit detailed data, such as a statement of transactions, cash receipt and disbursement, and purchase and sales store, following the purchase or actual transaction of goods, until the date of examination.

(3) If the factual basis is the same as above, it is difficult to recognize that the claimant actually traded the relevant input tax amount and received it accordingly. Therefore, it is deemed that the disposition office did not err in the disposition that the claimant deducteds the relevant input tax amount and corrected the value-added tax.

4. Conclusion

This case's request for a trial is without merit, so it is decided as ordered in accordance with Articles 81 and 65(1)2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes.

June 7, 2007

chief national tax judge this Decree