2013 Middle 3195

Where a sales business is operated in return for the supply of goods continuously and repeatedly, it shall be the business operator.

Since continuous and repeated supply of goods and then it has been engaged in precious metal sales business in return for the payment, it is reasonable to see that the business is a business operator, and it does not change solely on the ground that the business was conducted in a manner that does not receive value-added tax from the customer without business registration or that the business was operated for a small scale and living purpose.

2014 disposition of revocation of imposition of value-added tax, etc.

The United States of America

○ Head of tax office

May 29, 2014

June 19, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition on May 8, 2013 against the Plaintiff was revoked each of the imposition of the first quarter value-added tax for the first quarter of 2008, the second quarter, the first quarter of value-added tax for the second quarter of 2009, the second quarter of value-added tax for the second quarter of 2009, the first quarter of value-added tax for the second quarter of 2010, the OOO, the second quarter of value-added tax for the second quarter of 200, the OOO, the second quarter of value-added tax for the second quarter of 208, the global income tax for the year 2008, the OOO, the global income tax for the year 209, the OOOO, and the total amount of the OOOO for the global income tax

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff purchased gold and silver, etc. in a local apartment complex, etc. from around December 2008 to around 2010, and sold gold and silver, etc. toCC precious metal (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Transaction") in the same 11-3, such as BB distribution in OO-Gu O-dong 103; and (b) the director of the ○○ Tax Office conducted a tax investigation on the Customer around December 201, 201, after confirming that the value of gold and silver supplied from the plaintiff was the cause of OOOO in the case of BB distribution and precious metal (hereinafter referred to as the "sale in this case"), and notified the defendant of the above findings. Based on the above findings, the defendant did not notify the plaintiff of the global income tax base (hereinafter referred to as the "sale in this case") and did not notify the plaintiff of the tax base of the disposition in this case by omitting the additional tax on the ground of the above findings.

Taxation Period

Details of transactions (taxable data)

Details of taxation;

BB Distribution

CC precious metal

guidance.

Tax Base

Value-added Tax

Global Income Tax

1, 2008

OOO

OOO

OOO

OOO

OOO

Second Period, 2008

OOO

OOO

OOO

OOO

OOO

1, 2009

OOO

OOO

OOO

OOO

OOO

Second Period, 2009

OOO

OOO

OOO

OOO

OOO

OOO

1, 2010

OOO

OOO

OOO

OOO

OOO

OOO

2010 Second Period

OOO

OOO

OOO

OOO

OOO

OOO

Total

OOO

OOO

OOO

OOO

OOO

OOO

D. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on October 22, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including the relevant branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

The Plaintiff purchased tents, gold and silver, etc. in local apartment complexes, etc., sent gold, etc. to the customer located in Seoul, and received the goods price as a passbook. As such, the Plaintiff did not make business registration by performing an act exempt from the duty to issue a tax invoice, received the goods price except value-added tax from the customer, and did not generate little profits, and the disposition of this case was unfair on the sole basis of the fact that there was only a transaction details with the transaction partner of this case without considering the aforementioned circumstances.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) "Person who supplies goods or services independently under Article 2 (1) of the former Value-Added Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 7, 2013) that provides for a person liable to pay value-added tax refers to a person who provides goods or services with an ongoing and repeated intention with an intent to create value-added (see Supreme Court Decision 86Nu876, May 26, 1987). Commencement and discontinuance of business under the Value-Added Tax Act are determined by the substance of the relevant fact without relation to registration and reporting under the Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Nu16193, Jun. 27, 1997; 97Nu20625, Sept. 18, 1998); and thus, the Plaintiff’s business has not been subject to value-added tax and has not been subject to taxes for two or more years since it did not constitute a business entity under Article 2 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act.

3. Conclusion

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