Daegu District Court-2017-Gu 20123 (Law No. 16, 2017)

Imposition of value-added tax on transfer of truck registration numbers for business use is legitimate.

The transfer of the registration number of a truck for business use constitutes the transfer of goods, and there is no non-taxable practice for the transfer, and each of the dispositions of this case against the transfer of the number plate for each individual vehicle is legitimate.

Article 6 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2017Nu4919 Disposition of revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

포QQ

d) The Director of the Tax Office

Daegu District Court Decision 2015Guhap20123 Decided February 16, 2017

November 30, 2018

December 21, 2018

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. Of the appeal costs, 70% is borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder is borne by the Defendant.

The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. The Defendant’s revocation of both the disposition of imposition of each value-added tax and each disposition of notification of change in the amount of income stated in the separate sheet 1 attached hereto and the notification of change in the amount of income stated in the separate sheet 1 attached hereto that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff changed the purport of the claim as above, as it changed the content that the Defendant would reduce the value-added tax for February 2, 2010 and 1 January 201, 201, the corporate tax for 2010 and the corporate tax for 2011 reverted to the Plaintiff while the lawsuit is pending in this court, and the owner would reduce the amount

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a general trucking transport business and trucking transport arrangement business.

B. From August 12, 2013 to October 26, 2013, the Defendant conducted the Plaintiff’s partial investigation of corporate tax for the business year 2008 to 2012 (hereinafter “instant tax investigation”), and found that the Plaintiff failed to file a report, on the ground that the Plaintiff transferred the right to use the automobile registration number for trucking transport business as indicated in the table 1 below to KRW 205,084,034, respectively, and that the Plaintiff did not file a report. The Defendant deemed the omission of the sale and deemed the omission of the sale, as indicated in the table 2, notified the Plaintiff of the correction and correction of the value-added tax and the corporate tax, and notified the change in the amount of income.

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal on March 13, 2014, but was dismissed by the Tax Tribunal on October 8, 2014.

D. On the other hand, the Defendant initially assessed the registration number of the vehicle 83 North Korea at KRW 19,000,000, on the other hand, however, on August 11, 2016, as the actual transfer price was confirmed to be KRW 15,700,000 during the instant lawsuit, the Defendant corrected the Plaintiff’s reduction of corporate tax of KRW 474,810, and KRW 557,490 for January 201, 201, respectively, and notified the Plaintiff of the change in the income amount of KRW 3,300,00 out of the income amount of KRW 110,550,00 for the business year to which the initial notice was given.

E. In addition, on October 30, 2018, the Defendant issued a disposition of KRW 25,50,000 from KRW 20,80,00 and KRW 20,50 from KRW 20,00,00 from KRW 20,00, KRW 200 from KRW 20,50 from KRW 20,00 from KRW 20,00, KRW 200 from KRW 20,00 from KRW 26,00 from KRW 26,00 from KRW 94 from the income amount of KRW 20, KRW 208 from the income amount of KRW 20, KRW 100 from the disposition of KRW 20, KRW 208 from the disposition of KRW 10,00 from the disposition of KRW 30,00 from the disposition of KRW 10,00 from the disposition of KRW 20, KRW 208 from the income amount of KRW 205,000 from the business year of reduction of corporate tax.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(i) argument that the transfer of goods is not a transfer of goods.

In light of the fact that the registration number or registration number plate of the truck for business use is not the plaintiff's property, but the goods under the Value-Added Tax Act are not goods, and thus, the plaintiff's business is not subject to value-added tax or corporate tax, and the plaintiff's transfer of the plaintiff's business classified by investment in kind constitutes "transfer of business" that is not considered as the supply of goods subject to value-added tax, the transferee has not paid the transfer price under the name of the defendant's business permission or business rights, etc., the right to extinction after six months from the date on which the report on the replacement or scrapping was accepted cannot be viewed as having the value of business rights, and the transfer of only the business permission right cannot be made, the disposition of this case based on the premise that

(ii) argument that there exists a non-taxable practice.

Since the tax authorities enforced the Trucking Transport Business Act on January 1, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as the " Trucking Transport Business Act"), it is illegal to conduct a tax investigation or not impose a tax on the partial transfer or acquisition of trucking transport business.

3) The allegation of illegality of taxation on individual vehicle number plates

a)Motor vehicles of 83 North Korea:

The fact that Iss transferred KRW 16.5 million to the No. 83 A’s Agricultural Account on October 5, 2010 is that the vehicle dealer, in fact, paid part of the purchase price of the vehicle in the name of the Esaa in the name of the Esa, Co., Ltd. Maa (Representative Lee-a), and thus, the Defendant’s each taxation disposition based on the premise that the Plaintiff transferred the No. 83 A’s vehicle number plate at a cost is unlawful.

(B) the 86-ASEAN vehicles;

Since the Defendant’s determination of KRW 1,00,000,000, which was based on the purchase price of the vehicle license plate of the Gyeongbuk-do 86 Asia, is irrelevant to the Plaintiff, because it is related to the vehicle related to the Gyeongbuk-do 84, which was transferred to Hoa on March 18, 201 by Youngbuk-do, Inc., a corporation, and transferred its registration to Ho on March 18, 201, each taxation by the Defendant on the premise that the

4) The allegation of illegality of notice of change in income amount

A) Although it is evident that the transfer price of each number plate belongs to Maa or Kima, a shareholder of the Plaintiff, in the case of Gyeongbuk-do 83, Gyeongbuk-do 99, Gyeongbuk-do 98, and Gyeongbuk-do 98, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the change in the amount of income. However, this constitutes a minor omission or obvious error, not a clear case in the notice of change in the amount of income, but a case where the transfer price received by Maa or Kima is a mistake of substantial truth. There is no evidence to acknowledge that the transfer price was paid to Ga finally, and even if it is unclear that the transfer price of each house number plate was not an officer of the Plaintiff at the time of transfer of each number plate, and the Plaintiff did not actually control the Plaintiff, in light of Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 101 (a) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24357, Feb. 15, 2013; hereinafter the same).

B) Since Isa entered into an agreement with Maa to receive the Plaintiff’s management profit in order to repay the principal and interest of the amount leased to Maa, the amount received aa is merely a repayment of the claim, and it cannot be subject to notification of change in income amount.

(b) Related statutes;

Attached Table 2 shall be as stated in the relevant statutes.

C. Determination

1) Determination on the first argument

A) Article 6(6)2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 7, 2013; hereinafter the same) provides that "a transfer of business, which is not deemed the supply of goods, is prescribed by Presidential Decree," and Article 17(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 24638, Jun. 28, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that "a transfer of business shall be comprehensively succeeded to all rights and obligations related to the business by place of business." In such cases, Article 1(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "a transfer of business shall be imposed on transactions falling under any of the following subparagraphs," and Article 17(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "any rights related to the business, among rights and obligations related to the business, including those related to amounts receivable, etc." shall be included in Article 17(2).

On the other hand, the "transfer of business" that is not considered as the supply of goods refers to the comprehensive transfer of physical and human facilities, including business property, and rights and obligations, and the replacement of only the management body while maintaining the identity of the business. Thus, the business must be separated from the management body and can be recognized as a social independence. The fact that the object of transfer is not a simple physical facility, but such organic combination is not a mere physical facility, the burden of proof for the reason of tax disability is the taxpayer (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu12778, Jul. 10, 1998).

B) In full view of the following facts and circumstances revealed in light of the above legal principles as to the instant case’s health class, the facts acknowledged earlier, and the overall purport of Gap’s evidence Nos. 10, 16, and 17, the Plaintiff’s sales of the number plate of a truck for business purpose constitutes an object of value-added tax and corporate tax, since the Plaintiff’s sales of the number plate of a truck for business purpose constitutes an intangible goods, and thus, this part of

(1) The sale and purchase of a truck license plate for business use shall be deemed to be the sale and purchase of a "right to use a motor vehicle registration number for the trucking transport business" which actually indicates the relevant license plate.

② After the amendment of the Trucking Transport Business Act on January 20, 2004, the trucking transport business was changed from the registration system to the permission system, in principle, the premium has been formed and actively traded on the number of the existing trucking transport business granted to the previous trucking transport business entity, as the new permission and the increased permission are prohibited.

③ In the case of transfer of the number plate of a truck for business use, the ownership of the truck is still owned by the owner of the land, and the right of a part of the land-based transportation business is transferred to another land-based company, and the entire right of the land-based transportation business is not comprehensively transferred. Therefore, it is difficult to regard it as a "transfer of the business which does not regard it as the supply of the goods under the former Value-Added Tax Act" and rather, it is reasonable to view it as an intangible article with property value as an

④ Since the registration number of a truck for transport business is based on the premise that the trucking transport business license is granted, it appears that the owner of the land did not receive the number plate from the Plaintiff even after paying the purchase price, and that the new owner of the land took the form of taking over the new owner of the land. Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have not received the price for the transfer of the truck number plate solely on the ground that a contract for partial transfer and takeover of the business, which takes place between the Plaintiff and the new owner of the land,

2) Determination on the second argument

Article 18(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "an interpretation of tax-related Acts or practices in tax administration, which has been generally accepted by taxpayers" refers to a wrongful interpretation or practice that is accepted by a general taxpayer who is not a specific taxpayer as just cause and that it is not unreasonable for taxpayers to trust such interpretation or practice. In order to establish such a non-taxable practice, there is an objective fact that has not been imposed for a considerable period of time, and the tax authority must have an intention not to impose tax due to any special circumstance even though it knows that it can impose tax on the matter. Such public opinion or intent must be expressed explicitly or explicitly, but it should be viewed that the tax authority expressed its intention not to impose tax on the state of non-taxation for a considerable period of time, unlike mere omission of taxation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Du7855, Sept. 5, 2003; 2005Du13585, Dec. 24, 2009).

Pursuant to the above legal doctrine, it is difficult to deem that there was no taxation for the sale of a truck license plate to a trucking business operator prior to the instant disposition, solely on the ground that there was no taxation for the sale of the truck license plate for business use, and the circumstances alleged by the Plaintiff alone are insufficient to deem that the tax authorities were exempt from taxation due to any special circumstance, and such intent cannot be deemed to have been externally or implicitly expressed. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

3) Judgment on the third argument

A) Relevant legal principles

Unless special circumstances exist, such as that if a tax authority received a written confirmation from a person liable to pay tax to a person who has a certain taxable fact in the course of conducting a tax investigation, such written confirmation may not be readily denied solely based on the evidence of such written confirmation, unless there exist any special circumstances, such as where the written confirmation was forced against the will of the person who prepared the document, or it is difficult to be deemed as evidence of the specific fact due to insufficient details (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Du2560, Dec.

B) As to the vehicles of 83 North Korea:

In full view of the following facts and circumstances revealed in each statement of evidence Nos. 27 and 39 including the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff may recognize that the Plaintiff transferred the registration number of the vehicle 83 North Korea to Cheonga Co., Ltd. and received KRW 16,500,000 as the price therefor. The only statement of evidence No. 27 is insufficient to acknowledge the above facts, and there is no counter-proof. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

① At the time of the instant tax investigation, Cheonga’s representative authoritya traded the number plate of the cargo vehicles for the business of the Plaintiff and Gyeongbuk-do 83, on October 11, 2010, respectively, submitted a written confirmation to the effect that the Plaintiff purchased the number plate of the cargo vehicles for business use from the Plaintiff, and Kima submitted a written confirmation to the effect that at the time of the purchase of the cargo number plate of the vehicle for business use from the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff transferred the proceeds from supply from the purchase to Lee Jong-a, who was in a de facto management of the Plaintiff from his own son’s account, and no special circumstance exists to deny the value

② On October 5, 2010, Republic of Korea deposited KRW 17 million in the Agricultural Cooperative Account (Account Number: 704-12) in the name of Es, and on the same day, Es deposited KRW 16.5 million in the name of Es. A. transferred KRW 16.5 million in the Nos. 762-02.

C) As to the 86-ASEAN vehicles

Comprehensively taking account of the following facts or circumstances, the evidence Nos. 23, 6, 7, 30, and 36 of the evidence Nos. 23, and 6, 7, 30, and 36 may be acknowledged that the Plaintiff transferred the number plate of the vehicle 86 Gyeongbuk-do in return for the payment of KRW 15,50,000 from Hoa Co., Ltd. (which means the payment for vehicle transfer). Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

① At the time of the instant tax investigation, at the time of the instant tax investigation, Os’ representative Os’ meeting submitted a written confirmation to the effect that “As paid KRW 15,500,000 to Esa account on February 15, 2011, when taking over the number plate of the freight truck for business use 86 U.S. from the Plaintiff.” On the same day, Os’ meeting is confirmed to have deposited KRW 15,50,000 in the No. A’s account in Esa’s name (Account Number: 760-02).

② 경북 86아 차량의 자동차등록원부에 2010. 12. 14. 위 차량의 명의가 원고에서 주식회사 호a으로 이전등록된 사실이 기재되어 있고, ㅁㅁ시가 2010. 12. 10. 위 차량에 관하여 양도인을 원고로, 양수인을 주식회사 호a으로 하는 화물자동차 운송사업 양도ㆍ양수 신고를 수리하였다.

③ At the time of the instant tax investigation, the evidence No. 71 (C. 71) provides that “A” is the transfer price of 15,500,000 U.S. 84 U.S. vehicle, or that the said confirmation document is submitted for a considerable period after the instant lawsuit was filed, and it is difficult to readily acknowledge its credibility. There is no other evidence to acknowledge that there is any special circumstance to deny the evidentiary value of the confirmation document No. a prepared by Ma at the time of

④ It is difficult to acknowledge that the Plaintiff received KRW 15,50,000 from Ho-a Co., Ltd. to receive KRW 15,500,000 from the proceeds of the vehicle number plate by only the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 33 through 35, and instead, it is difficult to acknowledge that the Plaintiff had made a transfer registration of Gyeongbuk-do

⑤ Meanwhile, at the time of the instant tax investigation, the confirmation document (Evidence B No. 8) written by Kima, the representative of the Plaintiff at the time of the instant tax investigation, stated that KRW 11 million out of the KRW 15.5 million deposited in the account of Lee Aa is the price for the registration number of the said vehicle, and that the remaining KRW 4.5 million is the money in other names (the outstanding amount).

4) Judgment on the fourth argument

A) Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act provides that when filing a report on the corporate tax base on the income for each business year under Article 60 or determining or revising the corporate tax base under Article 66 or 69, the amount included in the calculation of earnings shall be disposed of as prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as bonus, dividend, and other outflow from the corporation to the person to whom the income belongs, and Article 106 (1) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides that where it is clear that the amount included in the calculation of earnings under Article 67 of the Act has leaked out of the company, it shall be deemed that the dividends, profits, bonuses from the disposal of profits, other income, and other outflow from the company according to the following items according to the person to whom the income accrue: Provided, That where the accrual is unclear, a representative (where an officer who is not a minority stockholder, etc. and persons in a special relationship under Article 43 (8) and such an officer actually controls the management of the corporation, such a representative shall be deemed to have been reverted to the person to whom the income belongs.

B) First, we look at the transfer price of registration numbers of 98 Asia and Gyeongbuk 99.

In addition to the whole arguments in the statement in Section 8, 31, 32, 33, 50, and 51, the borrower sent KRW 25,575,000 (the vehicle registration number of KRW 20 million) to the bank account in the name of Jeonga with the registration number of the vehicle purchase price, etc. on March 28, 201, the borrower sent KRW 25,575,000 (the vehicle registration number of KRW 20,000 among them) to the bank account in Maa. on the same day, Maa deposits KRW 20,000,000 out of them to the account in Maa. The borrower deposits KRW 99 on April 5, 201, the borrower deposited KRW 25,50,000 in the bank account in Maa's name with the transfer price in Maa's number plate, etc. (the vehicle registration number of KRW 20,000 among them), it is reasonable to deem that the transfer price was actually reverted to the defendant 98a.

C) We examine the following: (a) the registration number of 83 Asia, Gyeongbuk-do 98 Asia, and the transfer price of the vehicle:

B. According to the statements in Gap 35, 40, and 41 evidence and the testimony of Kim Jong-a, the representative director of Il-aa corporation deposited KRW 15,70,000 in the Daegu Bank account under the name of Kima on May 12, 2011 with the transfer proceeds of around 83, 201, and on January 7, 201, the 160,000 won was deposited in the new bank account under the name of Kima-a-be 98, around 10, 201. However, in light of the above facts, Lee Jong-a-ok's statement and the purport of the whole statement in No. 63, No. 46, and No. 47 of this case's 20a-a- of this case's 20a-a- of this case's 160,000 won was prepared as a witness of this case's 20a-a- of this case's 2016.

According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that Ea serves as an officer of the Plaintiff from October 2010 to have acquired the Plaintiff’s right of management and has de facto control over the said company. Thus, even if the transfer price of the vehicle registration number 83 Asia and Gyeongbuk-do 98 was deposited into an account in the name of Kimaa, the actual person to whom the income actually accrues shall be deemed as Ea. Therefore, it is legitimate for the Defendant to dispose of the registration number of the vehicle 83 Asia and Gyeongbuk-do 98, as a bonus for Ea and notify of change in the amount of income.

D) Finally, I examine the argument that it is unlawful to dispose of this as a bonus for this A and notify of changes in the amount of income, since the receipt of vehicle transfer proceeds, etc. was received as a repayment of a loan claim pursuant to an agreement with Maa.

The written evidence Nos. 31, 60, and 63 alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that there was an agreement between Ea and Eaa to appropriate funds for the repayment of the principal and interest of the loan accrued from the Plaintiff’s management. Furthermore, even if Eaa and Eaa agreed as alleged by the Plaintiff, it is not effective against the Plaintiff as the agreement to appropriate the income that ought to be reverted to the Plaintiff for the repayment of the obligation of Eaa individual cannot be deemed as having been effective against the Plaintiff. Thus, since the amount included in the gross income was leaked out of the company, it is not changed to the fact that the Defendant actually reverted to Ea, insofar as the gross income leaked out of the company is actually reverted to Ea, it is legitimate to give notice of change in the amount of income

E) Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed due to the lack of reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.