2014Guhap22306 Disposition of revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

A person who controls and manages profits, such as using a financial account related to the project, is a business operator.

Since the actual business operator operates a business using a financial account under the name of the nominal lender and fully recognizes the fact that all of the profits have been controlled and managed, the disposition of this case must be revoked in accordance with the principle of substantial taxation.

2015Nu6096 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax, etc.

door-○

▲▲▲세무서장

Daegu District Court Decision 2014Guhap22306 Decided February 22, 2015

January 15, 2016

January 22, 2016

1. On January 2, 2014, the Defendant’s disposition of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 3,943,980 against the Plaintiff on February 2, 2012 shall be revoked.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person who is registered as the business operator of △△△-dong, Daegu-dong, Daegu-dong, whose place of business is 1084-2015.

나. □□□□는 2012년 제2기 부가가치세 과세표준 신고를 하면서 소외 ■■■■ 주식회사와 ◆◆◆에게 세금계산서를 지연 발행하였고, 이에 피고는 세금계산서미발급가산 세를 적용하여 2014. 1. 2. 원고에게 2012년 제2기 부가가치세 3,943,980원(이하 '이 사건 부가가치세'라 한다)을 경정고지(이하 '이 사건 처분'이라 한다)하였다.

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal on April 7, 2014, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the decision on June 16, 2014.

Facts without dispute over the basis of recognition, evidence 1, 3, and evidence 1 and 6 of A, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The actual business operator of △△△, who is "Bale B" and "B" of this case, is merely the lender of the name, and in principle, the value-added tax of this case should be imposed on the plaintiff, even though it should be imposed on Bale Bale and Bale Bale Bale.

3. Determination

A. Relevant legal principles

Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes declares the principle of substantial taxation by deeming the person to whom it actually belongs as a taxpayer in cases where the ownership of income, profit, property, act, or transaction subject to taxation is merely nominal and there is another person to whom it actually belongs. Therefore, if there is another person who substantially controls and manages the income, profit, property, act, transaction, etc. subject to taxation different from the nominal owner, the nominal owner on the ground of type and appearance should be the person who actually controls and manages the taxation subject to taxation pursuant to the principle of substantial taxation, rather than the nominal owner on the ground of form and appearance, and the person who actually controls and manages the taxation subject to taxation should be the person liable for tax payment. And whether it is a case should be determined by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances such as the circumstance of the use of name, the content of the agreement by the parties, the degree and scope of involvement by the nominal owner, the relationship of independent responsibility and calculation, and the location of independent management and disposition authority on the subject of taxation (Article 2

B. Determination

In full view of the statements in Gap's evidence Nos. 3, 4 (including paper numbers), 6, 7, 8, and Eul's evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the plaintiff's business registration was made in the name of the plaintiff on May 31, 2009 upon the request of Gohovah, who is the mother, but the plaintiff took lectures in the private teaching institute located in the Nowon-do, from 2009 to 201 and did not participate in the △△'s business, and the △△ may fully recognize the fact that the △△△ operated the business using each account in the name of the plaintiff and controlled and managed all profits.

According to the above facts of recognition, since the business operator of △△△ is not the plaintiff but the plaintiff, it cannot impose tax on the plaintiff in accordance with the principle of substantial taxation. The instant disposition is unlawful and should be revoked.

4. Conclusion

Then, the claim of this case by the plaintiff is justified and it is decided as per Disposition.