National Tax Service Review Division 2012-0064 (Law No. 31, 2012)

No good faith or negligence of the plaintiff who received a false tax invoice shall be recognized.

Considering that the Plaintiff purchased oil at a price lower than the market price, received a defective shipment ticket, and did not directly verify the business place or storage place of each business partner of the instant case, except for the confirmation of the business registration certificate, copy of passbook, etc., and that the Plaintiff did not directly contact the business partner’s person in charge of the transaction through the transfer set, the Plaintiff’s bona fide and without fault cannot be recognized.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2012Guhap5215 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

HongA

Head of Public Tax Office

November 13, 2013

December 4, 2013

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 value-added tax for the first period of December 1, 2011 against the Plaintiff on December 1, 2011 and the second period of value-added tax for the first period of 2010 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From January 2010, the Plaintiff: (a) from OO-O on the trade name of OO-O to “B No. 2 gas station”; (b) closed the business on March 2, 2011.

B. The Plaintiff received the purchase tax invoice (hereinafter referred to as the "tax invoice in this case") of the OOO (hereinafter referred to as "CC company"), Co., Ltd. DoDD (hereinafter referred to as "DDD"), Co., Ltd. EE Energy (hereinafter referred to as "EE Energy"), Co., Ltd. FF (hereinafter referred to as "FF"), and each of the above companies was entitled to the deduction of the input tax amount as the aggregate of the 17 supply value of each of the above companies (hereinafter referred to as "the tax invoice in this case") in total from the 1, 2010 and the OO (the total value-added tax for the first and second years of 2010, 2010, and OOO for the second period of 2010).

Customer Trade Name

Taxation Period

Purchase of Receiving

Amount received

CCA

1, 2010

2

OOOE

DD

SECTION 1, 2010

5

OOOE

EE Energy

2010 Second Period

8

OOOE

FF

2010 Second Period

2

OOOE

Total

17

OOOE

C. On December 1, 2011, the Daejeon Director of the District Tax Office, the Director of the District Tax Office, the Director of the District Tax Office, the Director of the District Tax Office, the Director of the District Tax Office, and the Deputy Director of the District Tax Office were to conduct a tax investigation with respect to each business partner of the instant case, and confirmed that all of them were the so-called data that issued the tax invoice without real transaction and notified the Defendant of the result of the investigation. In relation to the receipt of the tax invoice of the instant case, the Defendant, on December 1, 2011, notified the Plaintiff of the correction and notification of the value-added tax OO(including additional tax) for the first period of value-added tax (including additional

D. The Plaintiff filed a petition for a trial with the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on August 31, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff was actually supplied with oil by each of the instant transaction parties, and was normally traded by receiving tax invoices while paying the price. Therefore, the instant tax invoice is not different from the facts.

Even if the oil supplier supplied to the Plaintiff not each of the instant transaction parties indicated as the supplier under the instant tax invoice but the Plaintiff was not aware that the instant tax invoice constituted a false tax invoice, the Plaintiff did not know that the oil was supplied from the other business entity. In doing so, the Plaintiff was unaware of the fact that the Plaintiff was not aware of the fact that the oil was supplied from the other business entity, and that there was no negligence on the part of the Plaintiff.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) In 2010, the Plaintiff received each of the instant transaction partners through the HaH, etc. of the Transfer Company from GG Co., Ltd., and received the business registration certificate and the copy of the passbook from each of the said transaction partners at the time of introduction.

2) The shipment slips received fromCC companies, FF, and DD indicate the name of each company or office address, not the oil reservoir, in the shipment column, and the temperature and proportion were not indicated. The shipment slips received from EE energy did not state temperature and proportion, or the shipment slips are delivered to the shipment slip stating some shares and seasons, but all of them are described as 0.821.

3) As a result of the tax authority’s investigation, each of the transaction parties of this case was confirmed as so-called data that issued only tax invoices without real transactions during the pertinent taxable period 1 and 2 years, for which the Plaintiff received the instant tax invoice.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 6, 9 through 12, Eul evidence 4 through 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) Whether the instant tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice

Article 17(2)2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10409, Dec. 27, 2010) which denies the deduction of an input tax amount on a tax invoice received in the course of transaction refers to a case where the necessary entries of a tax invoice do not coincide with those of the entity that actually supplies or is supplied with the goods or services, or the price, time, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu617, Dec. 10, 1996). Thus, even if a transaction of supplying the goods, etc. actually exists, the supplier constitutes a “tax invoice different from the one that is different from the issuer of the tax invoice.”

With respect to this case, in light of the fact that each transaction party of this case is an enterprise that has been confirmed as having issued a false tax invoice without actually storing, transporting, supplying oil at the place of business or oil storage facilities during the second and second taxable periods of 2010, the plaintiff is provided with the oil specified in the tax invoice of this case from a third party, not each transaction party of this case, and in the process, each transaction party of this case was merely responsible for the role of providing the necessary data such as the tax invoice with respect to real transactions between the plaintiff and the third party. Ultimately, the tax invoice of this case is a different tax invoice of this case, and the plaintiff's assertion in the opposite part is without merit.

2) Whether the Plaintiff is bona fide and without fault or not

The actual supplier and the supplier on a tax invoice may not deduct or refund the input tax amount unless there is any special circumstance that the supplier was unaware of the fact that the supplier was unaware of the fact that the supplier was unaware of the name of the tax invoice and that there was no negligence on the part of the supplier, and the person who asserts the deduction or refund of the input tax amount shall prove that there was no negligence on the part of the supplier in the fact that the supplier was unaware of the said name (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du1808

With respect to this case, it is not sufficient to recognize the plaintiff's good faith and negligence only with the evidence presented by the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

On the other hand, the following circumstances, i.e., (i) the Plaintiff did not properly state the temperature and weight of oil on the shipment slips, and such shipment slips cannot be deemed as normal shipment slips used for petroleum products with increased or decreased volume depending on temperature and density; (ii) the Plaintiff was supplied with oil below the market price, and the Plaintiff did not transfer the oil to GG to each of the instant business parties. In light of the actual circumstances of the oil industry and the risk of transactions, the Plaintiff was required to pay more attention to whether each of the instant business partners is a normal business entity or not; (iii) the Plaintiff did not know the Plaintiff’s business entity’s oil trading over the first and second taxable periods, but did not know the fact that each of the instant business entities was not a 60 business entity’s own business business registration certificate and did not know the fact that each of the instant business entities was not a 60 business entity’s own business entity or a 60 business entity’s own business business registration certificate.

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.