early 201-Gu3772 ( December 23, 2011)

The penalty tax shall not be exempted because the list of the total tax invoice by buyer is not submitted without justifiable grounds.

Even if a person issues an electronic tax invoice, he/she is exempted from the duty to submit a list of total tax invoices only when he/she transmits the details of issuance of the tax invoice to the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, and it is difficult to deem that there is any justifiable reason not attributable to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot be exempted from additional tax

Article 22 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2012 disposition of revocation of the imposition of value-added tax

AAA, Inc.

Head of Dong Daegu Tax Office

May 16, 2012

June 20, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax (additional tax) for the first term of August 16, 2010 against the Plaintiff on August 16, 2011 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, a corporation engaged in food and beverage manufacturing business in Daegu-gu OOdong 1093, issued electronic tax invoices for KRW 000 out of the sales amount of KRW 000 during the tax period of the value-added tax for the first year of 2010, and reported and paid the value-added tax for the first year of 2010, stating the amount as the portion of the electronic tax invoice issued.

B. During the reporting period of value-added tax in January 2010, the Plaintiff sent to the Commissioner of the National Tax Service for KRW 000,000, out of the amount issued by electronic tax invoices listed in paragraph (a), within the time limit designated pursuant to Article 16(3) of the Value-Added Tax Act, but did not transmit the amount to the Commissioner of the National Tax Service for the remaining 00,000 won (hereinafter “the amount

C. On August 16, 201, the Defendant confirmed the fact of non-transmission and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 000 of the value-added tax (additional tax) for the first time in 2010 by applying Article 22(4)1 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10409, Dec. 27, 2010; hereinafter “former Value-Added Tax Act”) on the ground that the list of the total tax invoices was not submitted on August 16, 201 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. On October 13, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal, which was dismissed on December 23, 2011.

[Based on Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 8, Eul evidence 1, 2, and Eul evidence 3 through 12, Eul evidence 4-1, 2, and Eul evidence 5-1 through 24, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion is as follows.

In light of the legislative intent of the electronic tax invoice system, legislative developments, etc., where an entrepreneur who issued the electronic tax invoice fails to transmit the details of issuance of the tax invoice to the Commissioner of the National Tax Service as the Plaintiff, no additional tax may be imposed on the case where the list of the total tax invoices by customer is not submitted under Article 22 (4) 1 of the former Value-Added Tax Act. However, in the case of a corporate entrepreneur under the proviso to Article 22 (2) 2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act, the above additional tax shall not be imposed until December 31, 2010, and the defendant may not impose additional tax on the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff failed to perform its obligation to transmit the electronic tax invoice before December 31, 2010.

3. Related statutes;

Attachment 'Related Acts and subordinate statutes' shall be as shown.

4. Determination

(a) According to Article 16(2) of the Value-Added Tax Act, and corporations shall issue electronic tax invoices; and, until December 31, 2010, a tax invoice other than electronic tax invoices may be issued; and when an electronic tax invoice is issued, a list of tax invoices shall be transmitted to the Commissioner of the National Tax Service by a given period. Article 20(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act shall be submitted along with a preliminary or final return; and when an entrepreneur issues or is issued tax invoices, a list of tax invoices by seller and a list of tax invoices by seller shall be submitted to the Commissioner of the National Tax Service; Article 22(2)2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act shall not apply; Article 22(2)6 of the former Value-Added Tax Act shall be applied if the entrepreneur who issued the electronic tax invoices fails to transmit a list of tax invoices by 10th of the month following the end of the taxable period in which the taxpayer is supplied, and Article 28(2)21 of the former Value-Added Tax Act shall not apply to the entrepreneur, but to the tax invoice 2.

B. According to the proviso of Article 20 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act, (i) a person who issues an electronic tax invoice is exempted from the obligation to submit a list of tax invoices to the Commissioner of the National Tax Service only when he transmits the list to the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, and (ii) a penalty tax under Article 22 (2) 2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act is imposed when the issuer violates the obligation to submit a list of tax invoices, and the penalty tax under Article 22 (4) 1 of the former Value-Added Tax Act is imposed when the obligation to submit a list of tax invoices is violated, and the requirements for imposition are different, and Article 2 (4) 4 of the former Value-Added Tax Act is first applied to Article 22 (8) of the former Value-Added Tax Act. (iii) In light of the fact that it is difficult to view that there is any justifiable reason not attributable to the Plaintiff, and even if the Plaintiff issued an electronic tax invoice, the disposition of this case is legitimate, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit

5. Conclusion

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