Whether a tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice

In a case where only a tax invoice is received without actual purchase of the gold, the disposition that deducts the input tax amount as falling under the false tax invoice is legitimate.

Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount)

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

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

Cheong-gu Office

The defendant's imposition of value-added tax of KRW 354,412,320 on January 1, 2005 against the plaintiff and the imposition of KRW 53,485,190 on November 1, 2005 against the plaintiff shall be revoked respectively.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff was established on November 29, 2002 and operated gold payment wholesale business. From January 12, 2003 to March 26, 2003, the Plaintiff received 2,431,145,000 won (hereinafter “each purchase tax invoice of this case”) from ○○○○, Inc. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) in total from the supply value, and deducted as the input tax amount at the time of filing the return of value-added tax for the first period of 2003, and included in deductible expenses at the time of filing the return of corporate tax for the year 2003.

B. On the ground that the non-party company received tax invoices from April 1, 2002 to April 18, 2003 without real transaction, the Defendant deemed that the transaction entered in each purchase tax invoice of this case from the non-party company as a false transaction is the transaction. On January 1, 2005, the Defendant corrected and imposed KRW 48,622,90 of the corporate tax for the business year 2003 by applying the additional tax against the non-party company's failure to receive evidence.

C. The plaintiff appealed against the defendant on March 28, 2005, but on May 23, 2005, the plaintiff's objection was dismissed, and on August 19, 2005, the National Tax Tribunal requested a trial on August 19, 2005, but was dismissed on November 8, 2005.

D. Meanwhile, even though the defendant should impose the penalty tax on the non-faithd value of the supply price at the time of imposing the above corporate tax, the defendant again corrected and imposed corporate tax of KRW 53,485,190 on November 1, 2005 on the plaintiff on November 1, 2005 by adding the additional tax of KRW 2,674,259,50 for the supply price, and adding the additional tax of KRW 4,862,290 for the supply price to the plaintiff on November 1, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "each disposition of this case by adding the imposition of KRW 354,412,320 for the first half of the year of January 1, 2005 and the imposition of KRW 53,485,190 for the business year of November 1, 2005).

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 to 3-2, Eul evidence No. 1-1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff received each purchase tax invoice of this case after purchasing the actual payment from the non-party company and paying the price in full. Thus, each disposition of this case that the Defendant considered all transactions with the non-party company as a disguised transaction is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Table shall be as listed in the attached Table.

C. Determination

According to the Plaintiff’s evidence Nos. 5-3 and 6-2, it is difficult to conclude that the Plaintiff’s sales of the instant tax invoice was genuine, and the Plaintiff’s sales of the instant tax invoice was confirmed to have been issued only without real transactions by all three transaction partners, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s sales of the instant tax invoice and the instant tax invoice No. 4 were no longer than 6-2, and the Plaintiff’s sales of the instant tax invoice were no more than 6-2, and the Plaintiff’s sales of the instant tax invoice were no more than 5-2, 17-2, 17-2, 100, 200-7, 200-7, 200-7, 200-7, 3-2,000,000 won and 4-2,000 won and no more than 5-7,000 won and no more than 3-7,000 won were paid to the Plaintiff.

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

Related Acts and subordinate statutes

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

(1) The amount of value-added taxes payable by an entrepreneur (hereinafter referred to as "paid tax amount") shall be the amount computed by deducting the tax amount under the following subparagraphs (hereinafter referred to as "purchase tax amount") from the tax amount on the goods and services supplied by him/her (hereinafter referred to as "sales tax amount"): Provided, That where an input tax amount exceeds the output tax amount, it shall be the refund tax amount (hereinafter referred to

1. The high-quality tax amount for 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 total tax invoices by customer is not submitted under Article 20 (1) and (2), or the input tax amount by 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 is not entered or entered differently from the fact, from among the entry items on the list of total tax invoices by customer submitted: Provided, That the input tax amount in such case as

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

Article 76 of the Corporate Tax Act [Additional Tax]

(5) Where a corporation (excluding such corporations as prescribed by the Presidential Decree) is supplied with goods or services from an entrepreneur as prescribed by the Presidential Decree in connection with its business and fails to receive the evidential documents falling under any subparagraph of Article 116 (2), the chief of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment shall collect the amount calculated by adding an amount equivalent to 2/100 of the unpaid amount to the corporate tax, except for the cases subject to the application of the proviso of the same