Seocho 209west 3129 ( November 05, 2009)

Obligation to become Cash Receipt Merchants of Certified Tax Accountants

Since the certified tax accountant business falls under the category of consumer business, it is possible to apply the additional tax to join cash receipts because it is deemed that the business operator is obligated to join only the cash receipt merchant.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff shall bear the litigation costs.

The imposition of global income tax of KRW 738,210 on the Plaintiff on April 2, 2009 shall be revoked.

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is running a tax accountant business from 402 to 2, 1990 by ○○○○○-dong 2, 6 ○○○-dong 2, and was not a member of a cash receipt merchant as of June 30, 2007.

B. On April 2, 2009, the Defendant imposed an additional tax of KRW 738,214 equivalent to 5/1,000 of the total amount of income during the taxation period on the ground that the Plaintiff’s business place constitutes the consumer counterpart business place, and the amount of income during the immediately preceding taxable period (2006) was KRW 370,238,248, and did not join the cash receipt merchant until June 30, 207, as global income tax for the year 2007 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

Facts that there is no dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 1, 4, Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The Plaintiff’s workplace provides bookkeeping agency services to the business operators and issues tax invoices, and thus constitutes a type of business other than the consumer shopping mall, which is a member of a cash receipt merchant. Therefore, Article 210-3 and [Attachment Table 3-2] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22034, Feb. 18, 2010; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act”) which provides the tax accountant’s business sector as a consumer shopping mall, violates the principle of substantial taxation.

(2) The duty to issue tax invoices under the Value-Added Tax Act is imposed on the services provided by the Plaintiff, and if the additional tax is imposed on the non-member shop membership, the additional tax will be imposed on the non-member shop membership.

(3) Even if the Plaintiff’s type of business is in line with the consumer counterpart type, the additional tax on the membership of cash receipt merchants shall be calculated by applying the additional tax rate of 5/1,000 only for the price supplied to consumers.

(b) Related statutes;

It shall be as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) The plaintiff's first proposal is replaced by the plaintiff's first proposal

Article 162-3 of the Income Tax Act (Obligation to join and issue Cash Receipt Merchants) was newly established on December 30, 2006 and enforced on July 1, 2007 in order to expand the use of Cash Receipts and secure the transparency of the members by requiring a business operator meeting the requirements prescribed by the Presidential Decree to join the Cash Receipt Merchants, by taking account of the type, size, etc. of business, and thereby requiring the business operator to join the Cash Receipt Merchants. On the other hand, in the case of a tax business, income from tax agent services, consultation, etc. against a person who is not a business operator as well as income from tax agent services, consulting, etc. is mostly involved. Considering the above legislative purpose and transaction reality, it is reasonable to view that in the case of the Plaintiff, even if only the captain agent services against the business operator are provided mainly, such circumstance alone cannot be deemed as violating the principle of substantial taxation.

(2) The plaintiff's second proposal is replaced by the plaintiff.

The additional tax on non-issuance of the tax invoice and the non-issuance of the cash receipt merchant membership tax are different from the applicable laws and regulations. Therefore, it cannot be said that the additional tax is imposed on the non-issuance of the tax invoice because it is separate from the additional tax on non-issuance of the tax invoice.

(3) The plaintiff's third proposal is substituted by the plaintiff

If the plaintiff concurrently operates other types of business along with the tax business which is the consumer counterpart business, only the revenue amount of the business type subject to the cash receipt franchise store should be the basis for the calculation of the additional tax. However, in this case, the defendant calculated the additional tax based on the total revenue amount that the plaintiff acquired through the tax accountant business during the taxable period, it cannot be said that

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.