National Tax Service Review Division 2011-0014 (Law No. 12, 2011)

The instant tax invoice is a false tax invoice by the supplier, and cannot be recognized as the Plaintiff’s good faith or negligence.

The instant tax invoice constitutes a different tax invoice from the fact that the actual supplier of old interest was prepared differently due to a disguised transaction without a real transaction, and even though the Plaintiff knew or was unaware of the fact that the person entered as the supplier was not the actual supplier, there was negligence.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2011 disposition of revocation of imposition of value-added tax, etc.

AA Commercial Corporation

Head of Namyang District Tax Office

April 24, 2012

May 22, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 00 on July 1, 2010 against the Plaintiff on the first half of 2008, KRW 000 on the first half of 200, KRW 000 on the first half of 209, and KRW 000 on the corporate tax for 2008, and KRW 000 on the corporate tax for 2009.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff collected non-ferrous metals, etc. and received purchase tax invoices in 2008 from DD Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “DD”), and issued purchase tax invoices in 000 won in total during the value-added tax period in 2009, and issued purchase tax invoices in 000 won in total during the value-added tax period in 2009 from EE non-ferrous FF during the value-added tax period in 2009, and declared and paid the input tax deduction and corporate tax deduction in deductible expenses for each taxable period.

B. On July 1, 2010, the Defendant, and each of the above tax invoices received by the Plaintiff from DD and EE base (hereinafter referred to as the “instant tax invoices”) were subject to the application of the provision on additional tax without deducting the relevant input tax amount, on the ground that it is different from the fact as the tax invoice under a disguised transaction, and on July 1, 2010, imposed upon the Plaintiff the tax amount of KRW 00 of value-added tax for the first period of 2008, KRW 000 of value-added tax for the first period of 200, and KRW 000 of corporate tax for the year 2008, and corporate tax for the year 20

[Grounds for Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1, and Eul evidence 9 (including household numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In transactions with DD and E non-performance, the Plaintiff fulfilled its duty of care as a business operator by identifying the business registration certificate of each of the above companies, and providing sufficient documentary evidence, such as the copy of the tax invoice, the tax invoice, the measurement mark, the identification card, the on-site photographic copy, and the passbook copy, and even around September 2007, the Plaintiff was subject to a decision of non-suspect as a result of the tax investigation in the above manner, and constitutes a good faith trading party.

B. Relevant statutes

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

C. Determination

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

The meaning that the entries in the tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act are different from the facts that the necessary entries in the tax invoice are different from the facts that the actual supplier of the goods or services, regardless of the formal entries in the transaction contract, etc. prepared between the parties to the goods or services, does not coincide with the actual supplier of the goods or services, the price and time of the goods or services, etc.

① From February 1, 1999, the 0th 0th 0th OOOO shop in DoDD was used as the GG input institute, and from January 1, 2009, the 1st 8th 0th 0th oO shop in DoD was continuously closed.

(2) The net 000 OOdong, which was used as a temporary site of DD, is not only used as a place of business of HH resources and sulfur resource, but also not equipped with facilities, equipment, or area to store 200 tons of Guide, which is a high-priced product.

(3) DD shall be confirmed to have no fixed assets or regular employees on the financial statements.

④ The Plaintiff purchased from DD from DD was transported to the place of business other than the net world, the location of the place of business of DD, and at the place of vision, city, Si, Ansan, and Ansan.

⑤ On the measurement certificate submitted by the Plaintiff, the vehicle number also did not coincide with the vehicle number of the land owner, etc. reported in DD.

⑥ The second industry that DD purchased copper during the second period of 2008 also constituted a suspected business (DD was not kept in its purchase evidence) and the purchase tax invoice received from DD from Dozzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzy

7) The amount of goods remitted by the Plaintiff to DD was withdrawn in cash through the account, etc. of the second industry within several days, and this constitutes a typical financial transaction form for disguised transactions through financial manipulation.

8) The JJJJJ 0000 JJJJJ 0000 square meters of size 17 square meters of size, and the EE non-ferrous has discontinued his/her duties in a book book, etc. with only three-month rent, and no other place of business has any other place of business to win and lower the scrap metal, and no tax has been paid.

9. The amount of goods remitted by the Plaintiff to the EE non-Iron was immediately withdrawn in cash.

(10) In full view of the above circumstances, DD and EE non-rein shall be considered to be ‘the so-called ‘data' that only issues the processed tax invoice without actual old transactions, and the actual purchase price of the plaintiff's tax invoice in this case shall be considered to be D and a third party, not EE non-rein.

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

Article 17(2)1-2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9268 of Dec. 26, 2008) provides that input tax shall not be allowed if the necessary entry of a tax invoice is entered differently from the facts. The main purpose of this provision is to train tax data under the pre-stage tax credit method and secure tax revenues. Therefore, if the actual supplier and supplier were to have a different tax invoice issued, the input tax amount shall not be deducted or refundable unless the actual supplier were unaware of the nominal entry of the tax invoice, and the supplier was not negligent in knowing the aforementioned disguised entry, barring any special circumstance where the actual supplier and supplier were not aware of the fact that there was no negligence, the party asserting the deduction or refund of the input tax amount shall be proven (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002). In full view of the circumstances that the Plaintiff was unaware of the nominal entry of the tax invoice and the Plaintiff did not know the following facts, and there were no other evidence that the Plaintiff supplied No. 6D 1 or 7.

① Since the Plaintiff’s waste resources industry has a high possibility of disguised and fictitious transactions, the Plaintiff must verify the movement route of the Gu Council that is traded prior to being supplied with the Gu Council, and verify whether the transaction partner is equipped with basic equipment, such as the guidance for the Gu Council wholesale business, the field, and the transport vehicle.

② In particular, the Plaintiff seems to have been well aware of the aforementioned circumstances while undergoing a tax investigation several times while working for the same kind of business.

③ The Plaintiff asserted that it commenced the transaction after confirming the business registration certificate, etc. of DDR, but the place of business under DDR, DDR, and EE non-ferrous iron's business registration certificate was an office where it is impossible to keep it in the old, etc., and the Plaintiff did not verify the above company's camping site, financial history, and non-legal collection history.

④ The Plaintiff, while purchasing dD from dD, received a written confirmation from dD operators, but it was easy to confirm that dD was not transported on the O market, which is the place of business of dD.

⑤ The history measurement applicant of the measurement certificate kept by the Plaintiff is a disturbance, and the place of its issuance was also a scopic, scopic, mountain, etc. irrelevant to the location of the place of business of DD.

⑥ 원고는 세금계산서 사본， 입고전표， 계량표， 계량증명서， 현장사진 등을 구비 하는 방식으로 2007. 9.경에도 세무조사에서 무혐의 결정을 받은 바 있으므로， QQQQ， EE비철과 거래할 때에도 동일한 증빙 등을 갖춰두면 충분할 것으로 판단하였다고 주장하나， 원고가 당시 무혐의 결정을 받은 것이 오로지 위 증빙을 갖춰둔 데에 기인한다거나 피고가 통일 증빙을 갖출 경우 차후에도 세무조사에서 계속 무혐의 결정을 받을 수 있다는 신뢰를 부여하였다고 보기는 어렵다.

(3) Therefore, the instant tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice, and it is insufficient to recognize the circumstances that the Plaintiff is bona fide and without fault in believing that the tax invoice received as the same as the Plaintiff was properly conducted. Therefore, the instant disposition by the Defendant is lawful.

3. Conclusion

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