2012 Middle 1107

Correction of an error or omission in the details of the report due to other data, such as omitting sales;

Documents prepared in the course of an investigation or a tax investigation shall not be deemed one of the other materials because the reasons for taxation can be the basis for taxation are stated. However, in a case where the process and contents of preparation are examined and it is recognized that it is reasonable and correct as taxation data, it may serve as the basis for a on-site investigation.

Article 29 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2012 disposition of revocation of imposition of value-added tax, 4574

1.A 2.leB 3.LCC

Head of the High Tax Office

July 30, 2013

October 1, 2013

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Cheong-gu Office

On August 11, 2011, the Defendant imposed value-added tax on the Plaintiffs on two years of 2006, imposed on the Plaintiffs the value-added tax, imposed on the first half year of 2007, imposed on the OOOO of the value-added tax, imposed on the second half year of 2007, imposed on the OOO of the value-added tax, in excess of the KRW OOO of the imposition imposed on the first year of 2008, in excess of the KRW OO of the imposition imposed on the OO of the value-added tax on the second year of 2008, in excess of the KRW OO of the imposition imposed on the OO of the value-added tax on the second year of 209, in excess of the KRW 209, in excess of the KRW OOO of the value-added tax on the second year of 209, and in excess of the KRW OO(the person described in the complaint appears to be a clerical error).

1. Details of the disposition;

(1) From June 26, 1989, the plaintiffs are individual entrepreneurs who jointly engage in Do and retail business with the trade names, "O 573-36, 200, 1000, 2000, 2000, 2000,0000,00000,00000,0000,00000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,00000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,000,0000,0000,000,0000,000,0000,0000,000,0000,0000,0000,000,000,0000,000 won.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

“The instant disposition is still premised on the omission by the Plaintiffs of the total sales of Nonparty GG, HG, H Electrical Construction, II Electric Safety Management Group, and JJ Korea Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Co.”), but the Defendant did not provide a clear basis for the instant disposition in addition to Nonparty KK and ChoL’s confirmation. As such, the instant disposition is unlawful against the underlying taxation and the principle of substantial taxation.”

(1) On April 20, 2011, the non-party, who is the actual operator of EE and FF companies, was convicted on April 20, 201 as the following criminal facts (hereinafter “instant criminal judgment”). The non-party, who was the actual operator of E and F Companies, was convicted on April 20, 201 by the Seoul Northern District Court Decision 201Da443, 499 (Joint) (hereinafter “instant criminal judgment”). The appeal was dismissed on June 24, 201, Seoul High Court Decision 2011No102 (Seoul High Court Decision 201No1102). The above judgment became final and conclusive, and (A) the issuance of the false

See Table 700,000,000

B) the issue of false sales tax invoices under the FF firm name;

See Table 700,000,000

"2) With respect to the issue of the above fraudulent sales tax invoice issuance, Non-party KR, who was the person responsible for the construction site of GG, ordered NG to NG on May 23, 201 to NG the president of NG 3 DDR (Plaintiffs who were employed as a third-party electric employee) and to the largest engineer (Non-party NN who was employed as a third-party electric employee) by telephone, it stated that the highest engineer would have caused tax invoices in the name of EE company and FF company while delivering it; 3) as a result of the investigation of the endorsement details of the bill paid by GG to EG company, etc., it was confirmed that DG’s second endorsement details were as follows:

4) On September 30, 2010, Plaintiff Lee Dong-A submitted a written confirmation with respect to the omission of the above sales to GG on September 30, 2010, about the second OOO part of 2009.

(5) On June 8, 201, 207 from 1 to 2008, Nonparty Y, who was a person in charge of HH Electrical Construction’s construction site, purchased most of the materials from D Electricity while serving as the Director of the Hancheon District of HH Electrical Construction’s Work site during the taxable period. At the time, Nonparty Y solicited Nonparty N to deal with EE from N, and confirmed Plaintiff YB, the response was made to the effect that EE and DDR companies like EE and DDR were aware of and of the material. Thereafter, upon ordering Plaintiff YB, Nonparty Y sent to EB a tax invoice under the name of EE and FF company, and sent it to Nonparty 7 under the name of Nonparty 1’s account to Plaintiff B’s account, and in particular, Nonparty 4 and Nonparty 6, who purchased the materials under the name of Nonparty 2’s NAOO (hereinafter “NE”) and Nonparty 6, who purchased the materials under the name of NANN.

8) The Defendant calculated value-added tax by recognizing the details initially reported to FGG companies and EE companies on the list of total tax invoices by seller, etc. as the omission of sales by the Plaintiffs. According to the purport of the decision of the Tax Tribunal as seen earlier, the Defendant corrected the tax amount as stipulated in the above 1. D. on the basis of only the amount recognized as the fact of issuance of false sales tax invoices in the instant criminal judgment

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, 14 to 17, Eul evidence 2 to 7 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

C. Determination

1) Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that if the ownership of the income, profit, property, act or transaction subject to taxation is merely nominal, and there is a separate person to whom such income, profit, act or transaction belongs, the person to whom such income, etc. belongs shall be liable

On the other hand, in the case of correction of any error or omission in the details of a taxpayer’s tax base and amount of tax, etc., it shall be based on account books or evidence, etc. However, if it is recognized that there are errors or omissions in the details of a taxpayer’s return by other data and that it is possible to conduct a field investigation, the data produced in the course of investigation or tax investigation may also be corrected by such other data. The data cannot be considered as one of the other data on the ground that there are grounds for taxation. However, the data prepared in the course of investigation or tax investigation shall not be prepared against the free will of the parties or related persons, and its contents are not prepared against the free will of the parties or related persons, and it shall be deemed that there is a reasonable truth as taxation data (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Du16137, Oct. 26, 2

2) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged as a whole and the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, ① the statement of this KK and Mediation, etc., is supported by the details of the bill endorsement, account transfer, etc., ② The issuance of the false sales tax invoice in this case cannot be deemed to have been conducted solely by Nonparty N, who is only one employee of DD Electric, and the Plaintiffs appear to have directly participated in the issuance of the false sales tax invoice in this case. ③ The Defendant determined the value-added tax amount on the Plaintiffs in accordance with the verdict of conviction against OM, who is the actual operator of EE company and FF company, in full view of the following circumstances, i.e., this case’s statements concerning the omission of sales, such as EE company and FF company, were supported by reinforced evidence, and thus, it is reasonable to view it as taxable data.

3) Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion that the disposition of this case goes against the principle of base taxation, substantial taxation, etc. is without merit, since the plaintiffs' omission in sales, which is the premise of the disposition of this case, was sufficiently proven.

3. Conclusion

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