National Tax Service Review Corporation 2008-0059 (Law No. 11, 2009)

Since it is recognized that a processing tax invoice has been issued as a household manufacturer and distributor, a disposition imposing a tax on the value of supply by deeming it as a park is legitimate.

Since it is insufficient to recognize that there was a real transaction without a real transaction from a business operator who operates a furniture manufacturing and sales business, etc. who has received a processing tax invoice from a person accused on data without a real transaction, a disposition imposing corporate tax by deeming the value of supply as a park is legitimate.

209Guhap4161 Revocation of Disposition of Corporate Tax Imposition

○○ Co., Ltd.

○ Head of tax office

April 19, 2011

6.21

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 1,090,289,840 for the business year of 2002 against the Plaintiff on July 1, 2008 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 11, 2001, the Plaintiff: (a) was a corporation established for the purpose of household manufacturing and sales business; and (b) filed corporate tax returns by adding the value of supply to deductible expenses, based on the tax invoice 9, total value of 3,277,519,00 won (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) received from ○○○ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○○”) in the business year 2002, based on the tax invoice 9, total value of supply; and (c) in calculating the amount of income for the pertinent business year.

B. On July 1, 2008, the Defendant imposed corporate tax of KRW 1,090,289,840 on July 1, 2002 by adding the amount equivalent to the value of supply to the amount of income for the pertinent business year to the amount of income for the pertinent business year, on the ground that ○○○○, the issuer of the instant tax invoice, was identified as data and the said tax invoice was falsely prepared without any actual transaction (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Upon the registration of IT and furniture sales business at the same time on the KOSDAQ by the IT company, the company, which operated IT and furniture sales business, had been registered in the IT business, this company established the plaintiff and supplied the plaintiff with the income and the household purchased at the time of the registration. However, the major shareholder and the representative of the plaintiff and insurance company, as the same person, attempted to operate the business by the method of selling the plaintiff. However, the consolidated financial statements under the Accounting Act should be reflected at the time of settlement of accounts, and when it was known that the major shareholder and the representative of the plaintiff and insurance company, as the same person, should be reported and announced to the Financial Supervisory Service, in order to presume that the plaintiff and insurance company's major shareholder and the representative are the same person, they shall receive the income and the household purchased by the plaintiff and sell it to the sales center, such as the Virtual department store, etc., but only through the tax invoice, should be included in the calculation of losses for the pertinent year during which the expenses equivalent to the value of supply of the tax invoice in this case actually paid.

B. Relevant statutes

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

C. Determination

As long as the taxpayer asserts that some of the expenses reported by the taxpayer are not actual expenses, the use of the expenses claimed by the taxpayer and the other party to the payment made by the tax authority were proved to be false, and that there was a fact that the taxpayer did not incur other expenses than the same amount as the expenses reported by the taxpayer, it is necessary to prove that it is easy for the taxpayer to present all the materials, such as the account books and evidence concerning the specific expenses, as to the existence and amount of the reported expenses and other expenses (see Supreme Court Decisions 94Nu3407, Jul. 14, 1995; 91Nu12912, Mar. 27, 1992).

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of pleadings as to this case’s health account, Eul evidence No. 2-1, Eul evidence No. 2-1, Eul No. 3-2, and evidence No. 3-4, the Plaintiff received the tax invoice of this case from ○○○ in the business year 2002; ○○○ is a company which reported the closure of September 30, 2004 to ○○ 200, while operating network POS system and peripheral devices sales business; ○ is a company which reported the closure of the tax invoice of this case. This case’s tax accountant ParkB introduced by ○○, the Plaintiff’s actual representative of this case’s accounting office and auditor, and this case’s sales account and purchase tax invoice No. 1 through ○○ 6,00,000 to 200,000,000 to 30,000,000 won or more, and the Plaintiff’s supply price of this case’s tax invoice of this case’s 1 through ○ 6,06,57,07

Rather, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the Plaintiff’s 1, 2, and 3 to 7: (a) the Plaintiff’s actual representative at the time of the taxable period for the corporate tax of this case; (b) the head of ○○○ and the auditor’s tax office were 0B to exercise influence over the Plaintiff’s ○○○; (c) the Plaintiff’s 20-year sales of the instant tax invoices were 00-year sales of the instant tax invoices; (d) the Plaintiff’s 20-year sales of the instant tax invoices and 30-year sales of the instant tax invoices and 20-year sales of the instant tax invoices; (e) the Plaintiff’s 20-year sales of the instant tax invoices and 30-year sales of the instant tax invoices and 20-year sales of the instant tax invoices and 0-year sales of the instant tax invoices and 20-year sales of the instant tax invoices and 20-year sales of the instant tax invoices and 20-year sales of the instant tax invoices.

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.