Review Other 2008-0032 (2008.08)

Tax-free petroleum purchase rights to another person shall be reduced or exempted for agricultural fishermen;

If the right to purchase tax-free petroleum is transferred to another person, the person subject to the tax-free petroleum reduction or exemption is farmers, fishermen, etc. who received the right to purchase tax-free petroleum, and also those who acquired the right to supply tax-free petroleum from the farmer from January 1, 2007

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

Article 106-2 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act

1. The plaintiffs shall be dismissed from filing their claims.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. The Director of the Government Tax Office’s Office of Defendant’s Government on the part of the Plaintiff’s Park ○:

(a) 9,504,140 won for the month of January 1, 2005 of traffic tax, December 1, 2007, 8,754,520 won for October, and 205;

1,278,580 won per month, 1,177,330 won per October;

(b) Value-added tax for the first period of 2005, February 5, 2008 5,253,460 won;

2. On February 1, 2008, the director of the High Military Tax Office (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant High Military Tax Office”) made to the Plaintiff ○○.

(a) Value-added tax for the second term of 205, 1,181,270 won, 171 minute 2,052,420 won, 2006; and

Part II 1,159,080 won;

(b) KRW 1,065,90 for October, 2005, KRW 710,60 for November, KRW 710,60 for December, KRW 1,83,09 for the month, KRW 1,883,09 for December, and KRW 1,883,09 for the month, KRW 1,421,20 for March, KRW 2,487,10 for March, KRW 497, KRW 420 for May, KRW 72,20 for October, KRW 2,277,90 for the month, KRW 72,277,90 for December, and KRW 72,200 for December;

(c) 159,880 won, 106, 590 won, 282,460 won, 282,460 won, 282, and 282,460 won, 213, 180 won, 373,060 won, 373,060 won, 74,610 won, 115,830 won, 341,690 won, 115,830 won, 115,830 won, 341,690 won, and 115,830 won, for December;

Each imposition disposition shall be revoked.

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

A. From 00 ○○○○○○○○○○○○-ro to 145-3 to “○○○ farm”, the Plaintiff Park ○○ operated a flower cultivation business under the trade name, and in 2005, 81,000 liters out of the 135,000 liters’ right to purchase tax-free diesel transit issued by agricultural cooperatives, used them for the purchase of tax-free diesel transit, but the remaining 54,00 liters transferred the remaining 54,00 liters to Kim ○, a gas station operator.

B. The Plaintiff U2C purchased 39,90 literes via 39,90 literes as a tax-free petroleum purchase right allocated from d○○ Co., Ltd., a gas station business entity running a flower farming business in the name of ○○○○○○-dong 881-2, “○○ farm” and actually purchased mitc oil.

C. The Defendants notified by the investigative agency of the above fact that they transferred the right to purchase tax-free petroleum from the agricultural cooperative to another person, as stated in the Plaintiffs’ claim, notified the Plaintiffs of the determination of value-added tax, education tax, and traffic tax (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with this and filed an objection and a request for examination, but all were dismissed, and the Plaintiffs filed the instant lawsuit on December 8, 2008.

[Reasons for Recognition] In the absence of dispute, entry in Gap 1, 2, and Eul 1 (including each number);

The purport of all pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is proper or not. The plaintiffs' proposal

Article 106-2(5) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 8146 of Dec. 30, 2006; hereinafter "the Restriction of Special Taxation Act prior to the amendment") does not clearly define the presumption of tax-free petroleum from any person if farmers and fishermen transfer the right to supply tax-free petroleum to any third person. It is inevitable in that the transfer of the plaintiffs' right to purchase tax-free petroleum was made as a means of reducing costs under the circumstances in which farmers bear farming liabilities. In fact, the benefit of purchasing the petroleum through using the right to purchase tax-free petroleum is not the plaintiffs Kim Il-ju, Co., Ltd., Ltd., and the presumption of tax-free petroleum against the plaintiffs is against the principle of substantial taxation. In addition, according to the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 8146 of Dec. 30, 2006) amended by Act No. 8146 of Dec. 30, 2006, the amendment of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act was made to acquire the above paragraph 16.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 106-2 (Abatement or Exemption of Value-Added Tax for Petroleum Products for Farming, Fishing and Coastal Passenger Ships)

C. Determination

According to Article 106-2 (5) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act prior to the amendment, the head of the competent tax office shall estimate the amount of tax reduced or exempted if the farmer or fisherman transfers the right to purchase tax-free petroleum supplied by the agricultural cooperative, etc. to another person. According to the interpretation of the above provision, the person to be presumed to have been granted the right to purchase tax-free petroleum granted by the agricultural cooperative, etc., and the fact that the plaintiffs transferred the right to purchase tax-free petroleum granted by the agricultural cooperative to another person is identical to the above. Thus, the pertinent disposition that presumed the amount of tax reduced or exempted by the plaintiffs is legitimate. In addition, the reason for the amendment as mentioned above in Article 106-2 (5) and (8) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act after the amendment is to estimate the amount of tax reduced or exempted to the farmer or fisherman at the level of strengthening sanctions on illegal distribution, but to expand it to collect tax exemption from those who are not the farmer or fisherman before January 1, 207.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion to the effect that the disposition of this case, which presumed the tax amount reduced or exempted pursuant to Article 106-2 (5) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 106-2 (5) prior to the amendment that was applied at the time of the act, was unlawful for the plaintiffs to transfer their right to purchase tax-free petroleum between 2

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim for objection case is dismissed as it does not have any reason, and it is the same as the disposition.

shall be ruled.