National Tax Service Review Division 2012-007 ( October 15, 2012)

No false tax invoice shall be deemed a transactional party in good faith.

In light of the fact that the plaintiff operated a gas station for about two years and seven months, the supplier's business facilities are not confirmed, and the forms and descriptions of the shipping slips received are different from the normal shipping slips, the supplier's good faith and negligence should not be recognized when the supplier receives a different tax invoice from the fact.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2012Guhap2087 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing Additional Corpses

The United States of America

Head of Yeongdeungpo Tax Office

March 20, 2013

April 12, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 000 of value-added tax for 2009 and KRW 000 of value-added tax for 1 year 2010 against the Plaintiff on December 1, 201 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From May 14, 2007, the Plaintiff operated a gas station with the trade name called "OOri 000, OOri 000," which was closed on June 16, 2010.

B. The Plaintiff received the following tax invoices (hereinafter “instant tax invoices”) from BB Petroleum Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “BB Petroleum”) and CC Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “CC Co., Ltd.”), and the Defendant deducted the supply value on the said tax accounting books from the input tax amount at the time of the return of the value-added tax for February 2, 2009 and January 201, 201.

C. The Head of the Daegu Regional Tax Office and the Head of the Busan Regional Tax Office, after conducting a tax investigation with respect toCC and BB petroleum, have confirmed it as data that issued false tax invoices and notified the Defendant of the data for taxation.

D. Accordingly, on December 1, 2011, the Defendant issued the instant tax invoice from BB Petroleum andCC companies to deduct the input tax amount for the pertinent transaction portion on the ground that it was a false tax invoice different from the fact, and notified the Plaintiff of the correction of the amount of value-added tax for the second period of February 2009, and KRW 000 for the first period of January 201 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed a request for examination with the National Tax Service on January 30, 2012, and was dismissed on March 16, 2012.

[Ground of Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, and 3, and Eul 1 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff was actually supplied with oil by BB Petroleum andCC and received the instant tax invoice, and thus, the said tax invoice is not a false tax invoice.

2) Even if the instant tax invoice is tax invoice different from the fact, the Plaintiff confirmed the opposite contractual party through BB petroleum, the business registration certificate, and the name cards of the sales department KimD, etc., and confirmed the actual transaction details on the shipment slips and the transaction specifications. The Plaintiff was not negligent in not knowing that the instant tax invoice was not a actual supplier, and there was no negligence on the part of the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff was not a actual supplier on the instant tax calculation sheet.

3) Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition of this case is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) Research findings on BB petroleum

A) BB petroleum is an oil wholesaler operated with 000 OOO 000 OO in Busan as its place of business, and the office at the above place of business was kept only in a book without documents, and there was no trace of the normal business in the closed state.

B) BB petroleum entered into a rental contract between EEstru and February 4, 2010 with the term of lease from August 5, 2009 to the term of February 4, 2010 for the term of “1,00 storage tank 000 OO-dong 00, Ulsan-gu, Seoul-do, with a view to paying rent thereafter, the above lease contract was terminated, and there was no entry and departure of oil during the above contract period, and BB petroleum did not have storage facilities, employees, and business facilities for storing and distributing a large amount of oil.

C) It was confirmed that TO, a purchaser of BB petroleum, was a material fact of oil shipment, and that it was so-called so-called data that tax invoices were issued falsely without real transactions.

D) The oil price transferred to BB petroleum account by the sales offices including the Plaintiff showed abnormal financial flow, such as by immediately withdrawing the amount in cash or returning part of the amount to the purchaser through the transit account.

E) A business member or a driver is unable to specifically memory the oil withdrawn, or is memoryd with the oil reservoir of the four static oil, but the shipping details of the 4th static oil did not transfer the shipping details of BB petroleum.

F) The Director of the Busan Regional Tax Office decided that BB Petroleum was issued and received by falsity without real transaction, and accused BB Petroleum and the representative director OB to the prosecution for violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, and voluntarily closed down BB petroleum, and EO was currently dismissed.

2) As to the findings of theCC company

A)CC was a petroleum wholesaler operated on June 17, 2009 with 0000 OOOdong, north-gu, Posi-si, and recorded sales of KRW 1 million in the first half of 2010, but did not own an oil storage facility and transportation vehicle, which is a basic time.

B) In the sales place of the applied energy, etc., if the payment was made to the corporate account of theCC company, the form in which the amount of cash was immediately withdrawn was repeated, and some of the amount deposited showed abnormal financial flow such as remitting money through Internet banking to the purchasing places of the OO and BB petroleum.

C) The Director of the Daegu Regional Tax Office decided the data thatCC companies issued and received tax invoices by falsity without real transactions and accused the CC companies and the representative director's refined FF to the prosecutor's office on suspicion of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, and ordered the CC companies to close down their business ex officio. The FF is currently in the state of suspension of prosecution.

3) Trade between the Plaintiff and BB Petroleum andCC

A) The Plaintiff traded with BB petroleum andCC companies through KimD, and KimD presented to the Plaintiff that it was changed to the name of SH Energy Department Co., Ltd., BB petroleum business department, and CCTV business department in a short period. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff did not take measures to confirm directly by telephone to BB petroleum andCC companies, and did not have to confirm BB petroleum andCC companies’ oil storage facilities.

B) The date, number, and carrier of the shipment slips issued by BB petroleum andCC companies (hereinafter referred to as “the shipment slips in this case”) to the Plaintiff are as follows: The shipment slips are composed of the weight and destruction, temperature, card number, approved number, and shipper:

C) ThisGG does not have to transport the transit of BB petroleum andCC companies to the Plaintiff, and therefore, this case’s shipment slips were prepared with a written confirmation that the Plaintiff was false and KimD (Evidence No. 3), and Gyeongnam OO vehicles among the above transit transport tank vehicles were manufactured on April 21, 2010 in the register of automobiles (Evidence No. 5) and the first registration date on December 13, 11 is clearly false.

D) In addition, HHLS Co., Ltd., the owner of the said vehicle, had no trucking business operator using the said vehicle from April 8, 2010 to the 26th of the same month, and thereafter sent a reply that he transported only lux (Evidence B 4).

[Ground of Recognition] The purport of the entire arguments described in the facts without dispute, Gap 4 through 14, Eul 20, Eul 2 through 6, nine, and Ten (including each number)

D. Determination

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

A) Article 17(2)1 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that input tax shall not be deducted from the output tax amount in cases where the entries of the tax invoice are different from the fact, and that the entries of the tax invoice are different from the fact, and where the ownership of the income, profit, calculation, and act subject to taxation is nominal, and where there is another person to whom the tax invoice belongs, the person to whom the tax invoice belongs is liable to pay taxes, in light of the purport of Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes stipulating that the necessary entries of the tax invoice are inconsistent with those of the person to whom the goods or service is supplied or supplied, regardless of the formal entries of the transaction contract, etc. made between the parties to the contract on the goods or service (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu617, Dec. 10, 196).

B) With respect to the instant case, the following circumstances revealed by the Health Unit recognition, i.e., BB petroleum andCC companies were confirmed to be a data company that issued false tax invoices without real transactions, and the representative director of BB petroleum andCC companies and the EF were accused of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act. ② BB petroleum did not actually use the oil storage facilities reported, and BB petroleum andCC companies did not have the capacity to supply oil under the instant tax invoice because they did not own storage facilities or transportation facilities for storing and distributing a large quantity of oil. ③ This GG entered as a transporter on the shipment list of the instant case. Then, it was confirmed that the Plaintiff did not transport B petroleum andCC companies, and KimDD was not known, and the Plaintiff did not receive the above 200 U.S. car transportation vehicles (Seoul 8OOOM) under the instant tax invoice, and the Plaintiff did not receive the above 200 U.S. transport vehicles from 70 days prior to the date of the first entry into the instant tax invoice.

2) Whether the Plaintiff constitutes good faith and negligence

A) Unless there are special circumstances, the actual supplier and the supplier on a tax invoice may not deduct or refund the input tax amount unless there is any negligence on the part of the person who received the other tax invoice in the name of the tax invoice, and the person who received the tax shall prove that there is no negligence on the part of the person who did not know the above fact of the name of the tax invoice (see Supreme Court Decision 201Du26695, Mar. 29, 201).

B) It is sufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff purchased oil from BB petroleum andCC companies, and that there was no negligence on the part of BB petroleum andCC companies that the Plaintiff did not know that the tax invoices issued by BB petroleum andCC companies were false, while purchasing fuel from BB petroleum andCC companies, and that there was no negligence on the part of the other party. Furthermore, the following circumstances revealed by the above facts are as follows: ① the Plaintiff was operating a gas station for about 2 years and 7 months before it was traded with BB, and the Plaintiff did not know that there was no more than 20 years and 20 years and less than 20 years and less than 20 years and less than 3 years and less than 20 years and less than 20 years and less than 20 years have elapsed since the Plaintiff did not know that there was no negligence on the other party to the investigation, and the Plaintiff did not know that there was no objective reason that there was no more than 20 years' change on the supply structure and route of the oil, and that it did not know that there was more than 29 years and 20 years of the Plaintiff's.

3) Sub-determination

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case is legitimate.

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.