The early 2013 middle 1252

False Tax Invoice

If the subject, timing, supply value, etc. of the goods or services actually supplied or supplied do not coincide, in principle, the input tax deduction is not permitted, as the necessary entry of the tax invoice is different from the fact.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act, Articles 126-4 and 121-4 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

2014Gudan10155 Disposition, etc. to revoke refund of value-added tax

LAA

BB Director of the Tax Office

2014.12.09

2015.01.03

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From May 1, 2012 to 000 (hereinafter referred to as “00”), the Plaintiff, who runs a wholesale business with the trade name of “00”, filed a return of value-added tax on July 17, 2012, and subsequently, filed a return of total tax amount of KRW 20,695,933 on the purchase price of clothing equivalent to KRW 201,052,050 from “CC et al.” (hereinafter referred to as “CC”) other than the Plaintiff, upon filing a return of value-added tax on July 17, 2012.

B. On December 3, 2012, the Defendant issued a revised and notified the Plaintiff to pay KRW 5,440,883 of the value-added tax for 1 December 3, 2012, without recognizing the Plaintiff’s above input tax deduction of KRW 20,105,205, and imposition of KRW 6,031,561 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff appealed and claimed an inquiry to the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on June 27, 2013.

(c)

D. The Plaintiff was served on or around July 8, 2013 with a decision on the foregoing adjudication, and filed the instant lawsuit on October 1, 2013.

was made.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 4 to 6, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 2-1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The non-party HongA purchased a carry-over product from Non-party DD (hereinafter referred to as "DD") under the name of the Republic of Korea, and exported it to Africa, etc. in accordance with the agreement with CCC. The HongA deposited the transaction price included in DD in the value-added tax in full and deducted the input tax amount of 20,105,205 won from CC. The above purchase tax amount was the above purchase tax amount.

The Plaintiff, a partner of the HongA, promised to return an amount equivalent to the amount of the tax invoice by issuing a tax invoice in the future 000, which was established by the Plaintiff. However, unlike the TBTA promise, the Plaintiff did not issue a tax invoice on the grounds that the transaction is in progress, and the Plaintiff would have issued a purchaser tax invoice via the inquiries of the competent tax office. Therefore, since the Plaintiff and CCTV had a real transaction as a result, the input tax deduction was just, and the Defendant’s disposition based on the different premise was unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Value-added tax is collected and paid by a person who supplies goods or services from a person who trades and pays value-added tax, and the person who receives the goods or services is entitled to deduct the input tax amount after the transaction was collected. In a case where the subject, timing, supply value, etc. of the goods or services do not coincide with that of the person who actually supplies or is supplied the goods or services, in principle, input tax deduction is prohibited as a matter of principle, on the grounds that the necessary entries in the tax invoice are entered differently from the fact. In addition, in a case where the supplier does not issue the tax invoice, the person who receives the goods or services issues the purchaser tax invoice only when he/she has obtained confirmation of the transaction details by the head

(2) We examine the instant case in light of the aforementioned legal principles.

Gap evidence 1 to 5, each of Eul evidence 2 to 7 (including branch numbers for those with numbers)

재와 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, ⑴ 홍AA와 CC테크 사이에서 2010. 11. 9. 홍AA가 CC테크 명의로 국내구매 및 해외수출 거래를 하고 수출대금 회수금액의 5%를 CC테크에 지급하는 등의 내용으로 동업약정이 체결된 사실, ⑵ 이에 따라 홍AA가 DDAD으로부터 CC테크 명의로 이월상품 의류 등을 매입하면서 2012. 3. 6.까지 공급가액과 세액을 합산한 대금 합계 221,157,000원을 DDD에 송금한 사실, ⑶ DDD은 2010년 2기 부가가치세 신고를 하면서 CC테크에 대한 매출 201,052,050원을 신고하였고, CC테크도 2010년 2기 부가가치세 신고를 하면서 DDD으로부터의 동일 공급가액의 매입을 신고하여 그 해당 매입세액 공제를 받은 사실, ⑷ 한편, CC테크는 2011. 2. 8.경 홍AA에게 동업약정 불이행 등을 이유로 계약해지의 의사를 통보한 사실, ⑸ 홍AA는 사업자등록 없이 위와 같은 일을 하였고, 2012. 3. 5. 원고와 사이에 DDD 이월상품의 판매를 50:50의 비율로 동업하기로 하는 내용의 동업약정을 체결한 사실, ⑹ 이후 원고는 2012. 5. 1. 000을 설립한 사실, ⑺ 원고는 CC테크가 000앞으로 세금계산서를 발행해주지 않자, 2012. 5. 1. CC테크와 000 사이에 공급가액 201,052,050원의 거래가 있었던 것으로 매입자발행세금계산서를 발행하고, 2012. 7. 17.경 2012년 1기 매출세액 합계 503,839원, 매입세액 합계 21,189,772원, 공제세액 10,000원, 환급세액 20,695,933원으로 부가가치세 신고한 사실이 인정된다.

According to the above facts, it is clear that the Plaintiff: (a) transferred the clothing price to DD and sold, exported, etc. under the name of CCC was RedA; (b) the Plaintiff established 000 as of May 1, 2012 and did not engage in the transaction, such asCC et al. for the first time in 2012. Even according to the Plaintiff’s own assertion, the Plaintiff had been issued a tax invoice in 000 future to receive a refund of the amount equivalent to the input tax amount paid for the second time in 2010 as the Plaintiff had been engaged in the work, which was performed by HongA; and (c) it is merely just that the Plaintiff filed a tax invoice in 201,052,050 won as a purchaser of tax due to nonperformance; and (d) it is difficult to view that there was a transaction between the two, apart from the contractual obligation of the Plaintiff, RedA, and CCC, the Plaintiff’s tax invoice and the relevant tax invoice were not lawfully issued in accordance with relevant statutes.

(3) Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition of this case is lawful, and there is no illegality as alleged by the Plaintiff.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Relevant statutes

former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (Amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 7, 2013)

Article 126-4 (Special Cases concerning Deduction of Purchase Tax Amount by purchaser-issued)

(1) Notwithstanding Article 16 of the Value-Added Tax Act, where an entrepreneur registered as a taxpayer and prescribed by Presidential Decree fails to supply goods or services and to issue a tax invoice at the time when the tax invoice is issued pursuant to Article 16 of the Value-Added Tax Act, the entrepreneur provided with such goods or services may issue a tax invoice (hereinafter referred to as "tax invoice after obtaining confirmation from the

(2) The value-added tax amount entered in a purchaser-issued tax invoice issued pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be deemed the input tax amount eligible for deduction under Articles 17 (1) and 26 (3) of the Value-Added Tax Act, as prescribed by

(3) In addition to paragraphs (1) and (2), the objects and methods of issuing purchaser-issued tax invoices, and other necessary matters shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Article 121-4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 24638, Jun. 28, 2013);

(2) A person who intends to issue a purchaser-issued tax invoice pursuant to Article 126-4 (1) of the Act (hereafter in this Article, referred to as an "applicant") shall file an application for confirmation of the fact of transaction prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance, along with documents proving objectively the fact of transaction, with the head of the competent tax office having jurisdiction over the applicant, within three months from the

(7) The head of the competent tax office who has received an application under paragraph (6) shall examine the applicant's application and the evidential materials submitted and confirm whether the relevant transactions are made. In such cases, the applicant shall bear the burden of proving the existence and the details