Imposition of input tax amounts already deducted when changing the type of taxation;

A general taxable person shall be entitled to deduct an input tax amount in advance for goods which are purchased within a specific taxable period and not yet supplied, but where such goods are not supplied to another person until they are changed to a special taxable person, the relevant input tax amount may be collected additionally.

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

Supreme Court Decision 88Nu2229 Delivered on November 28, 1989

1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed. 2. All costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

In addition to Gap evidence 1 (Receipt for Tax Payment), Gap evidence 5 (Certificate for Business Registration), Eul evidence 1-1-2, Eul evidence 3-1-1, 2-1-2, 3-1, 2-1-4, 3-1, 3-4 of the Value-Added Tax Act, and 3-4 of the above tax amount for tax credit of 1-6 years, the plaintiffs' tax base of the above tax amount for tax credit of 1-6 years shall not be added to 18-4, 198-2, 3-4 of the Value-Added Tax Act for tax credit of 1-6 years, 198-2, 3-4, 196-1-6, 9-4, 9-7, 198-7, 3-4, and 9-7, 9-7, which were newly constructed on the housing site of 0,000-dong 1-6, 1984.

On July 28, 1983, the defendant issued a business registration certificate to the plaintiff on July 20, 1983, and inspected the above business registration certificate on July 30, 1986. Under the premise that the defendant confirmed the plaintiff as a general taxable person on September 16, 1986, it is illegal to consider the plaintiff as a special taxable person on January 1, 1985 and to apply the provision on special taxation under Article 25 of the Value-Added Tax Act (2) If the defendant violated the above provision on special taxation, it should not be applied to the plaintiff as a general taxable person, and the provision on special taxation under Article 74-2 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act should not be applied to the plaintiff as a general taxable person, and the above provision on special taxation should not be applied to the plaintiff as a non-legal person without any violation of the above provision on special taxation under Article 74-2 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act.

First, according to the above (1) and (2) provisions of Article 5 (1) and (4) of the Value-Added Tax Act, the defendant's new business is merely a business operator who starts its business within the same taxable period, and the provisions of Article 25 (1), (3), Article 30 (2) 1, and Article 78 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act are not applicable to the previous business operator who started its business within the same taxable period, and the provisions of Article 25 (2) of the same Act are not applicable to the previous business operator who started its business within the same taxable period, and the provisions of Article 5 (2) of the same Act are not applicable to the previous business operator who started its business within the same taxable period for the first 0-year period, and the provisions of Article 25 (1) of the same Act are not applicable to the previous business operator who started its business for the first 20-year tax period, and the provisions of the same Act are not applicable to the previous business operator who started its business for the second 20-year period.

Next, as to the plaintiffs' claim, Article 17 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that the amount of value-added tax payable by an entrepreneur to the government for the goods or services supplied by him shall be the amount obtained by deducting the input tax amount from the output tax amount for the goods or services supplied by him/her, and that the amount of tax payable by a general taxable person shall be the amount obtained by deducting the input tax amount from the output tax amount for the goods or services supplied by him/her. In light of the basic principles of the Value-Added Tax Act, the above provision does not apply to a special taxable person (Article 25 (1) of the same Act) and Article 17 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that the special taxable person applies only to a general taxable person (Article 25 (1) of the same Act), and that the amount of tax payable by a general taxable person shall be deemed to be the amount obtained by deducting the input tax amount from the output tax amount for the goods or services supplied by him/her as a general taxable person.

Therefore, when the Value-Added Tax Act imposes a return and payment system on the amount of value-added tax calculated by adding the total purchase tax amount to the total sales tax amount during each taxation period, the tax authorities would be able to collect the amount of the input tax calculated by deducting the amount of the tax in advance from the amount of the tax on the goods that are purchased within the specific taxation period and are not yet supplied to other persons. However, if the tax authorities did not supply the goods to other persons until it is changed to the person subject to the special taxation, the amount of the input tax

Therefore, Article 74-3 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that where a person subject to general taxation is changed to a person subject to special taxation, the input tax amount to be deducted shall be added to the payable tax amount if the person subject to deduction of the input tax amount on the inventory and depreciation assets as of the date of the relevant change shall be paid in addition to the payable tax amount. It is merely a provision that deducts the input tax amount not to be deducted in accordance with the purport of Article 17 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act, which provides that matters necessary for the enforcement of the Act shall be delegated to the Presidential Decree, and it is merely a provision that sets a new taxation requirement without the basis of delegation by the mother law, and it shall not be deemed that the provision of Article 74-3 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act goes beyond the scope of matters necessary for the enforcement of the Act under Article 36 of the same Act, and shall not be deemed to violate the principle of no taxation without the law (see Supreme Court Decision 208Nu2045, Oct.

Therefore, the defendant's taxation disposition of this case, which the defendant applied the provision of Article 74-3 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, cannot be said to be an illegal disposition that violates the principle of no taxation without the law or goes beyond the limit of discretion. Therefore, the plaintiffs' above (3) proposal is groundless.

Finally, it cannot be said that the defendant made a speech or behavior that the plaintiffs did not apply the special taxation provision to the plaintiffs on July 28, 1983 on the ground that the defendant issued the general taxable person's business registration certificate to the plaintiff on July 28, 1983, and had censorship on the plaintiffs' above business registration certificate each quarter until the censorship of the above business registration certificate on July 30, 1986, or that the plaintiffs did not report the waiver of special taxation but faithfully fulfilled their obligations for more than two years. In addition, if the defendant fulfilled its obligations under the Value-Added Tax Act after making the business registration as a general taxable person, the supply price for the calendar year shall be continuously treated as the general taxable person even if it falls short of 24,00,000 won, and since there is no material to view that the above Chapter 4 of the plaintiffs also is groundless.

Thus, the defendant's taxation disposition of this case is legitimate, and therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case seeking the revocation of the above taxation is groundless, and the total costs of the lawsuit are dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the plaintiffs who are the losing party.