An input tax amount related to the land of a golf course shall be subject to non-deduction.

An input tax amount related to capital expenditures for the creation, etc. of land shall not be deducted from the output tax amount even in cases related to the business for which the value-added tax is not exempted, and such input tax amount is included in the acquisition value in the process of calculating the transfer difference in the transfer price of the relevant land.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant, as the plaintiff on March 14, 2007, revokes the decision of dismissal of the corrected dismissal.

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, a company running a golf course in ○○○-ri, 435-2, the Plaintiff, which was a company that operated the golf course in e.g., the Plaintiff reported and paid the value-added tax for two years in 203, 2004, 1, 2005, and 2 years in 2005.

B. On December 29, 2006, the Plaintiff filed a request for correction with the Defendant to refund the value-added tax declared and paid as above and the input tax amount related to the originally restricted land (hereinafter “the input tax amount of this case”) for the total of 705,784,628 won (271 minutes: 471,768,738 won, February 2004: 165,140,640 won, January 1, 2005: 42,596,946 won, and February 2, 2005: 26,278,304 won: the Defendant dismissed the above request for correction on March 14, 2007 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On May 11, 2007, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal on May 11, 2007, but was dismissed on June 26, 2008.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Entry B in Evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the entirety of the pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's principal

(1) In the latter part of Article 17(2)4 of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8826 of Dec. 31, 2007), the term “land-related input tax amount” refers to the land-related input tax amount related to the business subject to which the value-added tax is exempted. However, since a golf course business is not subject to the exemption of value-added tax, the instant disposition taken on a different premise is unlawful even though it should be deducted from the output tax amount.

(2) Article 17(2)4 of the Value-Added Tax Act (the latter part of Article 17(2)4 of the Value-Added Tax Act), and Article 60(6) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (hereinafter referred to as “each provision of this case”) are unconstitutional and invalid, contrary to the basic principles of the Value-Added Tax Act, such as the Act on Tax Credit at Former Stage, the principle of no taxation without law, the principle of equality, and the principle of guaranteeing property rights, and thus, the instant disposition based thereon is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

(1) The amount of "land-related purchase tax amount" under the latter part of Article 17(2)4 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Article 12(1)12 of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8142 of Dec. 30, 2006) provides that a value-added tax shall be exempted for the supply of land, and Article 17(2)4 of the same Act (amended by Act No. 8826 of Dec. 31, 2007) provides that an input tax amount related to the business of supplying goods or services exempt from value-added tax (including the purchase tax amount related to investment) and an input tax amount related to the land as prescribed by the Presidential Decree shall not be deducted from the output tax amount. Article 60(6) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that an input tax amount related to the capital expenditure related to the creation, etc. of the land refers to an input tax amount corresponding to the cost related to the acquisition cost of the land by actually increasing the value of the land. In light of the relevant provisions of the Value-Added Tax Act, an input tax amount related to the capital expenditure related to the creation, etc. of the land cannot be deducted from the output tax amount related to the land.

(2) Whether the various provisions of this case violate the Constitution

Since land is an element of creating added value with capital and labor, and it is not always appropriate to impose value-added tax, which is a consumption tax of land, because it is not consumed or extinguished due to the use of land, such as goods. Article 12 (1) 12 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that the supply of land is exempted from value-added tax in consideration of the characteristics of the above land, and Article 60 (6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that the input tax amount related to the supply of land under Article 17 (2) 4 of the Value-Added Tax Act is an input tax amount related to the capital expenditure for the creation, etc. of the land. In light of the relevant provisions such as Article 31 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, Article 67 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, and Article 67 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides for capital expenditure, each of the above provisions that stipulate non-deduction of input tax cannot be deemed as contrary to the basic principle of value-added tax.

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.