Whether a subsidy granted to an agency constitutes a sales discount

Since it is reasonable to deem that a subsidy paid by a customer by entering into an agreement to use a certain period of time is paid to a customer rather than an agency, a subsidy cannot be deemed to be related to a mobile device transaction between the Plaintiff and the agency. Therefore, a subsidy on the premise that a subsidy was paid to an agency is not equivalent to a sales discount.

Article 13 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2014Guhap6578 Disposition Rejecting Value-Added Tax Correction

oo Co., Ltd.

@@세무서장

November 28, 2014

December 12, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The disposition rejecting the correction of value-added tax made on the plaintiff * The disposition rejecting the correction of value-added tax made on the plaintiff is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, as a virtual mobile communications business entity (Moble Virtual Network), sold a device to an agency during the first VAT taxable period of value-added tax in 2010, and then supplied the device by the agency to the customer by selling the device to the customer. A subsidy was granted in the event that the customer agrees to use the device for a certain period of time or longer.

나. 원고는 단말기 공급가액에서 보조금을 차감하지 아니하고 20**년 제*기 부가가치세를 신고・납부하였다가, 20**. *. **. 피고에게 "단말기를 공급하면서 지급한 보조금은 에누리액에 해당하므로 과세표준에서 차감되어야 한다."는 이유로, 2010년 제1기 부가가치세 @@@원을 환급하여 줄 것을 청구하였다.

C. The plaintiff 20*.*. The defendant's "a subsidy is not a discount." The plaintiff was subject to a disposition of refusal to correct value-added tax (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition in this case") on the grounds that "the plaintiff is dissatisfied with it," and (d) the plaintiff requested a judgment of rejection from the Tax Tribunal ***.**.**. *. *. *. *. * The plaintiff was dismissed from the Tax Tribunal. [Grounds for Recognition] Facts that there was no dispute, Gap's evidence 1 through 4, Eul's evidence 1-1, 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole arguments.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Article 16 of the "Agreement on Entrustment of Mobile Services" entered into with the Plaintiff and the agency, "A" and "B" (* Home shopping) entrust the business of attracting mobile communications subscribers to "B" and enter into this contract with the following contents in order to carry out the entrusted business and the business incidental thereto. Article 13 (Supply of Terminals) provides "B" to "B" and "B" each month in consultation with the estimated quantity and estimated quantity of the services sold through "B", and delivery for the outlined customers is to deliver "B" directly to the relevant customers on behalf of "B", and "B" and "B" are to provide the same amount of 20 percent of the supply price of the services in accordance with the Presidential Decree of the 20th century (the same shall apply to the case of 20th century, which is 200,0000,00000,00000,00000,0000,00000,0000,0000).

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Facts of recognition

(1) On October 6, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a consignment contract for mobile communications services with * Home shopping (hereinafter “* Home shopping”) as follows.

Article 14 (Fees) The fees that are paid to the opening customers who attract "(Fees)" shall be classified into the expenses under special agreement for broadcasting, the opening fees and the sales incentives.

Article 15 (Non-Special Agreement Expenses and Opening Fees)

(1) The cost of broadcast provided by "A" means the cost of broadcast provided by "A" with the cost of home shopping broadcasting of "B", and each broadcast is conducted on the basis of the terms of "B". ② The cost of opening, including value-added tax, shall be determined by the agreement between "A" and "B" only once for each customer who has joined the telecommunications service of "A". Article 16 (Sales Grants) provides grants to the opening customer who has subscribed to the telecommunications service of "A" on the basis of the cost of release of a device.

Article 1 (Agreement of Installment Trade and Assignment of Claims)

1. The 'A' purchased a mobile phone from 'A' to 'A' in accordance with the agreement on the purchase of a mobile phone from 'A' to 'A', and 'A' to 'A' to 'A' to transfer 'A' to 'A' to 'A', 'A' to 'A' to 'A' to 'A' to 'A' to 'A' to 'A' to 'A' to 'A to check the terms of the agreement, such as the installment sale of the mobile phone and the transfer of the installment claims. 3. The 'A' to 'A' to 'A' to 'A' to 'A' to 'A' to 'A' to 'A' to 'A' to 'A' to 'B' to 'B' to 'B' to 'A' to confirm all the provisions of the agreement on the sale

A may not take any voluntary measure such as transfer, lease, or establishment of a pledge to another person of a mobile phone without the consent of "Before full payment of the installment amount". Article IV (Duties of Purchasers)

1. "A" shall pay the installment to "B" in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract with "B", and "A" shall continue to be paid even at the time of loss of the device, theft, damage, fire, disaster, or any other cause, such as loss of the device, damage or destruction of the device. "A" shall pay the bond preservation fee at the time of purchase of the mobile phone, and "B" shall deposit the bond preservation fee paid to "B" with the bank account designated by "B". Article 5 (Determination of Purchase Terms and Conditions)

1.A mobile phone sales is a condition to enter into the services of 'A', and 'A' cannot use the installment sales method for the purchase of mobile phone only. (2) In the event that the plaintiff sells a device to the customer through the agency, the main contents of the mobile phone installment sales agreement entered into between the plaintiff, agency, and the customer (hereinafter referred to as the "the installment sales agreement in this case") are as follows:

4. Pursuant to the provisions of Paragraph 3, "A" shall pay all the fees for installment payments at the time of purchase of the mobile phone and the installment period, and "the disease" shall be deposited into the bank account designated by "B". (3) At the time of filing an application for the use of the plaintiff's service, the customer prepared a confirmation document of customer consent (the application form for the fixed-term mobile phone product) (hereinafter "the confirmation document of this case"). The confirmation document of this case states "the name of the mobile phone type, the name of the mobile phone type, the number of months of the agreement", etc.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without any dispute, described in Gap evidence 5 and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) Article 13(2)1 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "The amount of discount shall not be included in the tax base", and Article 52(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that "the amount of discount stipulated in Article 13(2)1 of the same Act shall be the amount of direct deduction of a certain amount from the ordinary supply value at the time of supply of the goods in accordance with the quality, quantity, settlement of delivery and supply prices, and other terms and conditions of supply in the supply of the goods." Therefore, in order that "the amount reduced as a result of the payment of subsidy by the Plaintiff in the supply of the device constitutes "the discount" as referred to in the above provision, the amount of discount is related to the transaction between the Plaintiff and the agency, ② the quality, quantity and delivery prices of the device shall be determined in accordance with other terms and conditions of payment, and ③ the amount of discount directly deducted from the supply value of the device shall be the

(2) In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff’s subsidy was paid to the customer rather than the Plaintiff’s agent by entering into an agreement to use the service for a certain period of time, and considering the following circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the subsidy was paid to the customer. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion based on the premise that the subsidy was paid to the agent is not related to the mobile transaction between the Plaintiff and the agent. Therefore,

(A) According to Article *** of the Mobile Telecommunications Service Commission Agreement entered into with the Plaintiff * Home shopping, “The payment of incentives shall be made on the basis of the shipment price of the device for the opening customer who has subscribed to the Plaintiff’s telecommunications services.” Thus, the subject of the incentives is “outstanding customer”, and *** Home shopping in determining the amount of incentives. In addition, the terms and conditions of payment and the amount of payments have not been specified in determining the amount of the incentives, and the terms and conditions of payment and the amount of payments have been determined when the customer applied for the Plaintiff’s service as stated in the instant confirmation. (B) The method of directly supplying the device to the customer is the method of acquiring the Plaintiff’s claim for the sales price of the device, but the agent acquires the claim for the sales price of the device in the middle, and in the latter case, the Plaintiff’s transfer of the claim for the sales price through the instant installment sales agreement, and the tax imposition is not contrary to the substance of the transaction’s legal form, even if the method and method of directly supplying the device to the customer are treated.

(C) According to Article 36-4(1) of the Telecommunications Business Act (wholly amended by Act No. 10166, Mar. 22, 2010; hereinafter the same), a telecommunications business operator shall not subsidize the purchase cost of a device necessary for the use of the service provided by him/her, but may subsidize the purchase cost of a device to a "user who has agreed to use the device for a certain period of time". In light of the fact that the Plaintiff paid the subsidy to the "user who has agreed to use the service for a certain period of time" and that the claim for the subsidy acquired by the customer is deemed to have occurred through a contract entered into between the Plaintiff and the customer, it is determined that the subsidy falls under the subsidization for the purchase cost of a device recognized under Article 36-4(1) of the Telecommunications Business Act. (D) The customer will prepare the confirmation document of this case and submit it to the Plaintiff while entering into the service contract with the Plaintiff. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem the claim for the subsidy acquired by the customer to have occurred under the contract entered into between the Plaintiff

Meanwhile, according to the contract of installment transaction in this case, the agent transfers "the installment claim that was acquired by selling the device to the Plaintiff" to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff is deemed to have settled the amount of the installment payment to the customer by offsetting the claim for subsidies from the Plaintiff. (E) According to Article 16 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 59 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, where the amount added or deducted from the value of supply occurs after the business operator registered as a taxpayer issued a tax invoice, a tax invoice may be revised and issued. Thus, if the "amount reduced as a result of the payment of the subsidy" falls under the discount amount that should be deducted from the value of supply of the device after the issuance of the tax invoice, it constitutes a case of the amount deducted from the value of supply after the issuance of the tax invoice. Thus, the Plaintiff did not have issued the revised tax invoice even if the amount deducted from the original value of supply in accordance with the substance of the transaction could not have been issued, but the Plaintiff issued the revised tax invoice so far.

(F) The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the facts of the instant case and the facts of the instant case were the same. However, the new century communications case was approved to sell a CD method mobile device by the deadline on December 31, 1996. Since the expiration date of the approval period was imminent and at the same time from November 1, 1996 to January 1, 1997, an inventory discount was made on the condition that the subsidy (or discount) was related to the mobile communications service’s subscription to the mobile communications service, there were special circumstances to deem that the subsidy (or discount) was related to the mobile communications service’s supply transaction. On the contrary, the instant case was that the Plaintiff paid the subsidy to the customer to attract the customers of the mobile communications service that the Plaintiff provided, and it is difficult to view that the subsidy was related to the supply transaction between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff and the agency, while the case was not related to the supply price of the new mobile communications service’s supply price after the Plaintiff’s delivery of the revised tax invoice, it is difficult to view that there was no difference between the Plaintiff and the agent’s supply price of the new service.

3. Conclusion

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