Cho Jae-chul2013,0956 ( December 24, 2013)

As long as it is proved that it is false purchase data without actual transaction, the plaintiff must prove that there was a fact of purchase equivalent to the amount of such false purchase

As long as it is proved that it is false purchase data issued without actual transaction, the plaintiff must prove that there was a fact of purchase equivalent to the amount of purchase, and even if that amount is the amount of purchase by the plaintiff, there is no evidence to prove that it is a purchase amount to be added separately, not the purchase amount already included in necessary expenses by the plaintiff, and the defendant's disposition

Article 27 (Calculation of Necessary Expenses)

2014Guhap53636 global income and revocation of such disposition

Gyeong Kim

○ Head of tax office

on 21, 2014

on 25, 2014

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of global income tax for the Plaintiff on September 4, 2012, the global income tax for the year 2007, global income tax for the year 2008, global income tax for the year 2009, global income tax for the year 2009, and global income tax for the year 2010, shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a business entity that operates multiple clothing retail businesses, such as ○○○○○○○-si underground ○○○○○○○○-si ○○○○, etc.

나. 원고는 2007년부터 2010년까지 아래 표 기재와 같이 수입금액, 필요경비 및 소득금액을 산정하여 종합소득세 신고를 하였는데, 원고가 운영하는 ○○의류타운 및 ○○의류타운▼▼▼점, □□의류타운, ○○의류 사업장에서 ××상사 등 42곳의 거래상대방으로부터 수취한 매입세금계산서(이하 '이 사건 세금계산서'라 한다) 상의 공급가액 OOO원(이하 '이 사건 쟁점매입금액'이라 한다)을 각 해당연도의 필요경비로 산입하여 종합소득세 신고를 하였다.

C. On September 10, 2012, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the assessment data of the △△△ head of the processing tax invoice that the instant tax invoice was issued without real transaction, and △△△△ head of the tax office, denying inclusion of the purchase amount of the instant issue in necessary expenses, and notified the Plaintiff of the correction and notification of each of the global income tax amount accrued in the year 2007, the global income tax listed in the year 2008, the global income tax listed in the global income tax for the year 2009, and the global income tax listed in the global income tax for the year 2010 (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”).

D. On September 28, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on February 12, 2013, but was dismissed on December 24, 2013.

E. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff’s mother, in addition to the Plaintiff, operated the place of business of clothing retail separately from the Plaintiff, including “○○○’s clothing” and “△△,” and the details of the global income tax return pertaining to the global income tax accrued from 2007 to 2010, which was reported by the △△△△.

Facts without any dispute, Gap's 1, 2, and Eul's 1 through 3 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff recognized that the tax invoice of this case is a tax invoice different from the fact, but this company

건 쟁점매입금액에 상당하는 의류를 ◆◆시장, ▲▲시장의 집단의류상가인 AAA, BBB, CCC, DDD, EEE로부터 실제로 매입하였고, 다만 위 집단의류상가의 의류판매상들이 사업자등록이 없어서 다른 사업자명의의 세금계산서를 수취하여 종합소득세 신고를 한 것인바, 거래명세서, 거래사실확인서, 금융거래내역서 등 원고가 제출한 자료를 기초로 할 때 원고가 위 금액 상당의 의류를 실제 매수한 사실을 인정할 수 있으므로 이 사건 쟁점매입금액은 실질과세 원칙상 원고에 대한 종합소득세 과세표준 계산시 필요경비로 공제되어야 한다.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form 3 is as listed in the "relevant Acts and subordinate statutes".

D. Determination

(1) The tax authority shall bear the burden of proving the tax base that is the basis of taxation in a lawsuit seeking revocation of global income tax disposition, and the tax base shall be the basis of calculating necessary expenses, and thus, the tax authority shall bear the burden of proving revenues and necessary expenses, in principle. However, since all necessary expenses are favorable to the taxpayer, and most of the facts causing necessary expenses are located in the territory under the control of the taxpayer and the tax authority is difficult to prove. Thus, if it is reasonable to require the taxpayer to prove in consideration of difficulty in proof or equity between the parties, it accords with the concept of fairness to recognize the necessity of proof (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Du22955, Mar. 26, 2009; 2010Du28076, Apr. 28, 2011).

D. The instant dispute, as seen earlier, submitted by the Plaintiff

As long as it is found that the tax invoice equivalent to the purchase amount is false purchase data issued without actual transactions, the plaintiff must prove that the purchase amount was actually actually constituted. However, considering the following circumstances, the evidence, such as the transaction statement submitted by the plaintiff, the statement of transaction, the certificate of transaction, the records of account transfer and the statement of payment, and the certificate of Park △△, etc. of Park, alone, is insufficient to recognize that the purchase amount of this case is the purchase amount of the plaintiff. Furthermore, even if the purchase amount of the plaintiff is the purchase amount of the plaintiff, it is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff is not the purchase amount that should be added separately from the purchase amount already included in necessary expenses, and there is no other evidence to prove that it is not reasonable for the plaintiff's assertion, and each disposition

① According to the Plaintiff’s global income tax return for the period from 2007 to 2010, the aforementioned period is over.

The plaintiff's revenue amount is approximately KRW O0, and necessary expenses are approximately KRW O0 (the initial return amount is the amount corrected after KRW O0, but the amount corrected after the correction). Since the plaintiff did not submit specific evidence about KRW O0 as necessary expenses, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the purchase amount in this case is a separate additional purchase portion that is not included in the above KRW O0.

(2) Detailed statement submitted by the Plaintiff (including detailed statement of transactions attached to the evidence referred to in subparagraph 3)

발행상대방(매입자)란에 '사모님' 또는 '◎◎'('◎◎'은 ◆◆시장, ▲▲시장 등에서 박☆☆과 원고의 사업장을 칭하는 호칭이다)이라고 기재되어 있고, 거래사실확인서에는 확인서를 작성한 의류상인들이 '박☆☆(김★★)'과 거래하였다고 기재되어 있으며, 원고가 제출한 금융자료를 보면 대부분의 금액이 박☆☆ 명의의 계좌에서 매도인 계좌로 이체되었고, 상대방(매도인)의 입금계좌통장에도 박☆☆이 운영하는 사업자의 상호('○○의류', '□□' 등)가 기재되어 있다. 한편 박☆☆은 원고와 별도로 ○○의류 등 다수의 의류 소매업 사업장을 운영하고 있었고, 박☆☆의 2007년부터 2010년까지 귀속종합소득세 신고에 따르면 위 기간 동안 박☆☆의 수입금액은 약 OOO원이고, 필요경비는 약 OOO원인바, 이 사건 쟁점매입금액이 박☆☆의 사업장에서 발생한 위 필요경비 약 OOO원에 포함되지 않는다고 단정하기도 어렵다.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.