The early 2013 middle 4377

Tax invoices received from data constitutes false tax invoices, and do not fulfill the duty of due care;

The payment of the sales amount after data and transactions shall be immediately paid in cash, the payment of the sales amount is not presented in the course of the tax investigation, and the supply date stated in the tax invoice is not in compliance with the actual time of supply, etc.

2013Guhap4297 Disposition to revoke the imposition of value-added tax

KimA

The Director of Incheon Tax Office

June 19, 2014

July 17, 2014

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

On August 12, 2013, the Defendant revoked each disposition imposed on the Plaintiff on the second quarter value-added tax for the year of 2010, the second quarter value-added tax for the second quarter of 2011, the global income tax for the year of 2010, and the global income tax for the year of 2011.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From September 22, 2005, the Plaintiff has been running a wholesale business of scrap metal, etc. with the trade name called BB resources.

B. The Plaintiff received, within the second taxable period of 2010, an OOO tax invoice which is the aggregate of supply values from the DD resource operated by the originalCC, within the second taxable period of 2011, a tax invoice which is the aggregate of supply values (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant tax invoice”), and then deducted the above supply value as an input tax amount at the time of filing the value-added tax return for the second taxable period of 201, and included the amount as sales cost for the business year 2010 and 2011.”

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff: (a) after having prepared and confirmed the delivery volume of DD resources, brought them into the goods after confirming the delivery volume; (b) compared with the transaction specifications, the Plaintiff traded them in the way that the Plaintiff received the transaction specifications; (c) paid the scrap metal in the DD resources; (d) the Prosecution received a disposition of non-prosecution regarding the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act by the prosecution; and (e) the instant tax invoice was prepared by reflecting the actual transaction details as it was, and thus, is not a false tax invoice.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

"1) A tax invoice different from the fact provided in Article 17(2)1-2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9915, Jan. 1, 2010) which denies the deduction of the input tax amount for the tax invoice received in the course of transaction refers to a case where the necessary entries in the tax invoice do not coincide with the actual supplier, the supplier, the supplier, and the supplier of the goods or services (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96NuO, Dec. 10, 1996). Thus, even if the transaction of supplying the goods, etc. actually exists, it constitutes a tax invoice different from the date of supply under the tax invoice." Further, if the tax authority proves that the tax invoice on some of the expenses reported by the taxpayer was prepared in falsity without actual transaction, and the taxpayer has proved that the expenses claimed by the taxpayer are false, it is necessary to prove that the tax invoice has been actually paid, such as books and other documents.

2) Even if return to the instant tax invoice is based on health account, Plaintiff’s assertion, and witness EE testimony, the supply date stated in the instant tax invoice does not coincide with the actual time of supply, and it is unclear whether the tax period to which the date of the actual transaction and the date of the supply specified in the tax invoice are the same as that of the actual transaction. Thus, the instant tax invoice constitutes a

3) Furthermore, as to whether the transaction as stated in the remainder of the tax invoice of this case is confirmed, the following circumstances acknowledged by the entries and arguments in the evidence Nos. 2 and 6-2, and Eul Nos. 7, i.e., the Plaintiff failed to present a guidance in the course of tax investigation or tax trial, and the Plaintiff submitted an OOOOO and the 28 times from November 4, 201 to December 29, 201, were deposited into the account of the originalCC over 10 times from November 1, 201 to December 31, 2011. However, in light of all the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, it is difficult to view that the aforementioned deposited money was immediately withdrawn in cash, and whether it was finally paid in DNA resources, even if considering all the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, it is difficult to deem that the supply value of DNA resources in this case accords with the tax invoice of this case.

3. Conclusion

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