Whether a processing tax invoice without real transaction related to software services has been received

In light of the fact that several software development companies have traded tax invoices in a lump sum without real transactions for the purpose of unsatising out the external form, and there is no contract and no evidence of payment, etc., it is proved that it is a false purchase without real transactions.

Article 16 of the Value-Added Tax Act, Tax Invoice paid under Article 17

2013 disposition of revocation of imposition of value-added tax, etc.

AAA, Inc.

Head of the tax office

April 30, 2014

June 13, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The imposition of value-added tax of KRW 5,242,890 on July 1, 2012 against the Plaintiff, KRW 28,054,530 on February 2008, KRW 2008, KRW 18,927,980 on January 1, 2009, KRW 66,84,90 on February 66, 2009, KRW 10,872,590 on January 2, 2010, KRW 53,709, and KRW 53,709,09 on February 2, 2010, each of the imposition of value-added tax of KRW 31,211,760 on July 2, 2012, KRW 43,510 on corporate tax of KRW 510 on July 33, 201, and each of the disposition of imposition on KRW 701,201.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 19, 2004, the Plaintiff was established for the purpose of developing, manufacturing, and selling the computer software. BB served as the Plaintiff’s director, the representative director, and BB’s spouse DD respectively.

B. On April 18, 2012 to May 17, 2012, the Defendant: (a) determined that the Plaintiff received a tax invoice as shown in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “market tax invoice”) on January 1, 2008 or December 31, 2010; (b) notified the Plaintiff of the results of the tax investigation on May 20, 2013. Accordingly, on July 1, 2012, the Defendant issued 300 won, 28, 28,054, 530 won, 209, 18, 927, 2009, 209, 209, 209, 207, 209, 201, 300, 207, 207, 2005, 209, 2006, 209, 2016, 209, 2007, 2010.

D. The Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for review on September 21, 2012, but the Commissioner of the National Tax Service rendered a decision to dismiss the request on December 28, 2012.

Facts that there is no dispute over recognition, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings.

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

A. The plaintiff's assertion

원고와 주식회사 PPP(이하 'PPP'라 한다), 주식회사 QQQ(이하 'QQQ'라 한다), RRR, 주식회사 SSS(이하 'SSS'라 한다), 주식회사 TTT(이하 'TTT'라 한다)는 관계회사이고, 주식회사 UUU(이하 'UUU'이라 하고, 관계회사와 통칭하여 '관련업체'라 한다)은 관계회사의 대주주인 BBB가 이사장으로 재직 중인 점, 원고와 관련업체는 소프트웨어 개발사업의 특성과 기술을 기준으로 각각 법인으로 설립되어 운영중인데, 관련업체가 수주를 받으면 프로젝트에 관련이 있는 기술들을 융합하여 협업으로 완제품을 만들어서 납품하는 구조로 영업을 하고 있는 점, 관계회사들은 자체적으로 새로운 기술을 개발하고 제품을 만들어 특허출원을 하는 작업도 병행하고 있는 점, 프로그램 개발의 실물이란 개발과 관련된 소스로서, 개발된 제품은 특허출원이 되기도 하고 향후 거래처에 납품이 되기도 하는 점 등에 비추어 볼 때, 관련업체 사이의 거래는 필수적으로 발생하는 것이며 정상적인 거래임에도 피고가 관련업체 사이에 수수한 세금계산서가 가공의 세금계산서임을 전제로 한 이 사건 각 처분은 위법하다.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) TTT의 대표이사는 BBB이고, QQQ의 대표이사는 BBB의 배우자인 DDD이며, SSS의 대표자는 BBB, OOO이고, UUU의 대표자는 BBB이며, RRR의 대표자는 BBB이고, PPP는 BBB가 2008. 1. 1.~2010. 6. 13., BBB의 배우자인 DDD이 2008. 1. 1.부터 현재까지 각 대표이사로 각 근무하였다. 2) 피고가 2012. 4. 18.~5. 17. 원고 및 관련업체에 대하여 실시한 이 사건 세무조사 결과는 다음과 같다.

4. Report on the completion of investigation related to the transaction order (Evidence 3)

5. Details of inspection;

○ Major Recoverys

- PPP 대표 BBB는 관계회사 QQQ, AAA, 한국SSS첨단기술교육개발원, 소프트웨어TTT, RRR에 대한 실질적인 관리책임자이며, 세금계산서 발행과 관련한 실행위자임

-The main purpose of such processing transaction is to issue a processing sales and purchase tax invoice via the relevant company and the external company for the purpose of the competitive bidding and the free contract and bank loans, even though the tax invoice was requested to vindicate the actual input data on the transaction details received through the relevant company and the external company, and there is no submission of the supporting material to substantiate the transaction details. PPP for the content of the investigation by individual entity ○○ that the main purpose of such processing transaction is to confirm that it was to issue a processing sales and purchase tax invoice

- 2011년 분식을 위한 전자매출세금계산서 교부분, 즉 관계사간 분식거래분에 대하여 수정세금계산서를 발행함에 따라 수입금액이 급감하였으며, 실질적인 수입금액의 규모를 확인할 수 있음 - 관계사간 홈페이지 구축관련 용역제공, 서버관리 등 발주처가 확인되는 거래분에 대하여 실물거래 인정하고, 발주처 등 실물거래 없는 관계사간 회전거래에 대하여 가공거래 확정함 - 또한 관계사 외 업체를 거쳐 관계사를 우회한 분식거래 혐의자료에 대하여 가공혐의자료를 파생함(대금거래 수수자료 없음) QQQ

-the revolving transactions between the parties concerned occupy 98 per cent of the total amount;

-issuance of revised tax invoices for the portion of divisional sale in 2011

- Recognizing a real transaction for a transaction identified by the ordering entity, and confirming a processing transaction for a revolving transaction without any real transaction such as ordering entity;

-issuance of revised tax invoices for the portion of divisional sale in 2011

- recognition of real transactions for a transaction identified by the ordering entity (the amount under the contract with the local government and the details of the issuance and settlement of the tax invoice);

- Other contracting entities and buyers, etc. shall determine processing transactions with respect to revolving transactions without real transactions

- With respect to the purchase, sale, and pre-sale of business or clothing that has been incorporated as a primary business;

-the revolving transactions between the parties concerned occupy 7% of the total amount;

- Recognizing the actual transaction for the transaction whose results of the service transaction are confirmed, and fixing the processing transaction for the revolving transaction without any real transaction such as ordering points;

- An executive officer established on October 27, 2008 for the sale in lots of softwareTT commercial buildings located in Daegu Northern-dong 505-7, Ulsan-dong 505-7

- - Issuance of revised tax invoices for the portion of food sale in the second half 2011;

- The Plaintiff and BB et al. were indicted for committing the crime that they falsely reported that they received issues and tax invoices that have not been supplied or supplied with goods or services ( Daegu District Court Decision 2012 failure, 2012 failure, 2012 failure, 2012 failure, 2013 failure, 2000 failure, 2013 failure, 2000 (merged))) with respect to the sale of goods in lots with shop occupants; the said court sentenced the Plaintiff on May 16, 2014 to a suspended sentence of three years for the Plaintiff, who was sentenced to a fine of KRW 7 million and BB on June 1, 2014; and the Plaintiff and BB et al. were at the present appellate court (Seoul District Court Decision 2014No1739) with respect to the sale of goods or services. There are no grounds for recognition, the purport of each of subparagraphs 3 through 8, 101 through 21, 214 or 214 (Joint number of pleadings).

D. Determination

1) Generally, in a lawsuit seeking the revocation of a tax disposition, the burden of proof regarding the facts requiring taxation exists to the person who has the authority to impose taxes. However, if it is revealed that the facts at issue were to be presumed to exist in light of the empirical rule in the specific litigation process, it cannot be readily concluded that the pertinent taxation disposition is illegal disposition that failed to meet the taxation requirements (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Du6604, Feb. 22, 2007). Meanwhile, if the tax authority received a confirmation from the taxpayer that certain parts of the transaction are processed transaction, it is difficult to readily deny the evidence of the above verification that there was insufficient burden to prove that there was a lack of proof regarding the specific facts due to the taxpayer’s intent or lack of its content (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du2560, Dec. 6, 2002).

① BBB는 원고, TTT, QQQ, SSS, UUU, RRR의 대표자 등의 지위에 있으면서 관련업체를 지배ㆍ운영하였고, 쟁점세금계 산서의 교부・관리를 직접 하였다.

② The Plaintiff et al. appears to have the purpose of creating performance for bank loans by facilitating the participation in a free contract, competitive bidding, or increasing the scale of purchase and sales through the receipt of tax invoices without real transactions.

③ Through the instant tax investigation, the Defendant recognized the real transaction for the transaction part, such as the provision of website-related services, server management, etc., and confirmed the transaction as a processing transaction only for the revolving transaction between the related companies that do not have any real transaction, such as ordering places, etc.

④ BB accepting the key tax invoice was the one that there was no real transaction of the key tax invoice at the time of the tax investigation. The Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to submit documents proving the real transaction of the transaction of the transaction of the transaction of the transaction of the transaction of the transaction of the transaction of the transaction of the transaction of the transaction of the transaction of the transaction of the transaction of the transaction of the transaction of the transaction of the transaction of the transaction of the transaction of the transaction of the transaction of the transaction of the transaction of the transaction of the transaction by the relevant company, but the Plaintiff failed to submit them.

④ On May 16, 2014, the Plaintiff and BB were indicted on the charge that they falsely reported the issue tax invoice as the receipt of the tax invoice without being supplied with the goods or services, and were sentenced to a fine of KRW 7 million, and the BB were sentenced to a suspended sentence of three years in imprisonment with labor for one year and six months.

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