Seocho 2010Sho 2922 ( November 30, 2010)

In the case of the receipt of the purchase and sale tax invoice for processing, the exclusion period of five years is applied because there is no evaded tax amount.

As a result of the absence of the input tax collected through the application of zero-rate tax rate, the imposition of 10 years is illegal even though the imposition period for five years is applied since it cannot be deemed that the input tax was evaded or illegally refunded or deducted as the number of purchase and sales tax invoices.

2011Revocation of revocation of the imposition of value-added tax

Mari-gu

O Head of tax office

April 8, 2011

May 4, 2011

1. The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 1,983,70 of the value-added tax on August 5, 2010 against the Plaintiff on KRW 271, which was imposed by the Plaintiff on August 5, 201, and the imposition of KRW 6,346,380 of the value-added tax on KRW 1,204 is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 1, 1991, the Plaintiff is engaged in manufacturing and wholesale business of leather products by opening “CC” in Seoul BB-dong 1476-10, Seoul BB-dong 1476-10.

(2) On July 31, 200, the Plaintiff received purchase tax invoices of KRW 98,294,00 from DD (hereinafter referred to as DD) without real transactions, and issued KRW 200,00 for the second 2-year taxable period of value-added tax (from July 1, 2003 to December 31, 2003), KRW 100,079,000, KRW 2036,000, KRW 200, KRW 200, KRW 206, KRW 200, KRW 206, KRW 2066, KRW 206, KRW 200, KRW 206, KRW 300, KRW 300, KRW 205, KRW 206, KRW 16,000, KRW 200, KRW 206, KRW 206, KRW 18,205,

D. On September 7, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on each of the instant dispositions, but was dismissed on November 30 of the same year.

[Grounds for Recognition: The absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, Eul evidence No. 1-1, 2, Eul evidence No. 2 through 4, Eul evidence No. 5-1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments No. 5]

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

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Even if the Plaintiff entered the supply value on the purchase tax invoices and sales tax invoices in the second and first tax invoices by each purchaser in 2003 and 2004, the Plaintiff did not actually evade value-added tax or obtain unjustly deduction from refund. Thus, this does not constitute a case where the taxpayer under Article 26-2 (1) 1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 10405, Dec. 27, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply) to which the exclusion period for imposition of national taxes applies in 10 years does not constitute a case where the taxpayer evades national taxes or obtains a refund or deduction by fraudulent or other unlawful act. Accordingly, with respect to the second and second tax taxes in 203 and the first tax in 204, the additional tax in 204 shall be subject to five years, which is the exclusion period for imposition of national taxes under Article 26-2 (1) 3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and thus, each of the dispositions of this case by the Defendant shall be revoked since the exclusion period has expired later.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

1) Even if a taxpayer who has filed a tax base return within the statutory due date of return under the principle of strict interpretation of Article 26-2(1)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes evades national taxes, or does not receive refund or deduction due to fraudulent or other unlawful acts, the exclusion period of imposition shall be five years, in principle, if the taxpayer evades national taxes, and even if the taxpayer participated in the tax evasion, etc. of another taxpayer, it does not change unless there is any tax evasion. In addition, the determination of whether there was any evasion, unjust refund or deduction of national taxes in the form of tax return shall be based on the main tax amount excluding additional tax. In addition, where the entrepreneur who has filed a return on the tax base of value-added tax or the amount of tax refund based on the processing tax invoice along with the processing tax invoice, if the supplier of goods or services files a return on the tax base of value-added tax or the amount of tax refund on the processing tax invoice, it cannot be deemed that there was an abstract tax liability for such portion without the supply of goods or services subject to value-added tax as to the processing tax invoice tax, even if the input tax amount exceeds the output tax amount.

2) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the instant case’s statement: (a) the Plaintiff’s output tax amount was KRW 17,143,852 at the time of filing the return of value-added tax in 2003; (b) the input tax amount was KRW 10,423,793; and (c) the output tax amount was KRW 15,181,115 at the time of filing the return of the first value-added tax in 2004; and (d) the input tax amount was KRW 1,090,204 at the time of filing the return of the said processing tax invoice and sales tax invoice; (b) the Plaintiff’s input tax amount and sales tax amount were either 203 and 104, which were calculated by excluding the supply value on the said processing tax invoice and sales tax invoice at the time of each of the instant dispositions; and (c) the Plaintiff’s input tax amount and sales tax amount were not subject to the said input tax invoice and sales tax invoice for 20003 years thereafter.

Therefore, the imposition period of five years as stipulated in Article 26-2(1)3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes shall apply to the second-year value-added tax and the first-year value-added tax against the plaintiff in 2003. Each of the dispositions of this case is with merit to seek revocation of the meaning of each of the dispositions of this case, since it was made on July 5, 2010, since five years have passed since the exclusion period from July 26, 2004, when the second-year value-added tax can be imposed on the plaintiff in 2003 (the following day of January 25, 2004, the filing period of the second-year value-added tax return for the second-year value-added tax in 203) and the first-year value-added tax in 204, respectively.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted for all reasons, and it is so decided as per Disposition.