The early trial 2012-west-3510 ( October 30, 2010)

An input tax amount related to officetels used for residential purposes shall not be deducted in connection with the business.

An input tax amount related to officetels used by a company's executive for a real residence is not deducted as an input tax amount for expenditure not directly related to the business.

2013Guhap2563 Disposition of revocation of the imposition of value-added tax

AANDz.

Head of Seocho Tax Office

June 27, 2013

August 13, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of the value-added tax No. 2005 against the Plaintiff on January 30, 2012 and the imposition of the value-added tax No. 2008 against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

"A. On June 29, 2005, the Plaintiff purchased OO-dong O-dong 1316-5 BB 909 (hereinafter "O-dong 1316-5") and registered its business on July 6, 2005 with the type of business as real estate leasing business, and was entitled to the sum of the value-added tax on the buildings of this case during the 1st through the 2nd taxable period of value-added tax in 2005 to the 2nd taxable period of value-added tax in 2008, and the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer concerning the instant officetel on November 7, 2008; (b) The Defendant, on the ground that the instant officetel was not leased and used for residential purposes, did not deduct the input tax amount for the 200th taxable period of value-added tax for the 2000 O and 208th taxable period of value-added tax on January 30, 2012.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1-1, 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

After the Plaintiff purchased the instant officetel on June 29, 2005 and completed the instant officetel on November 7, 2008, the instant officetel could not be leased until the instant officetel was completed. Since the Plaintiff’s director was registered as an occupant for the purpose of management and was used as a harsh accommodation, the instant disposition was unlawful, deeming the instant officetel-related input tax amount as the input tax amount for expenditures not related to the business.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

Article 17 (1) 1 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9268 of Dec. 26, 2008) provides that "the tax amount for the supply of goods or services used or to be used for one's own business shall be deducted from the output tax amount." Article 17 (2) 2 of the same Act provides that "the input tax amount for expenditures not directly related to the business shall not be deducted from the output tax amount." As to this case, in full view of the health stand, Gap Nos. 4, 5, 6, and Eul Nos. 2 and 3, the plaintiff's Maximum director's CC, as a child of YD's representative director, worked as a professor at the 2008 Otel, the 2nd 2nd otel's otel's otel's otel's otel's otel's otel's otel's otel's otel's otel's.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit.