Truck number plates are supplied goods which are intangible goods of property value and fall under the taxable object of value-added tax.

Truck number plates are supplied goods which are intangible goods of property value and fall under the taxable object of value-added tax.

2015Guhap20024 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax, etc.

Note ○

○○ Head of tax office

June 15, 2016

July 22, 2016

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 38,258,350 on July 3, 2014, imposed on the Plaintiff on the first term portion of 2009, KRW 13,110,770 on the second term portion of 209, and KRW 6,452,970 on the global income for the year 2009 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The previous disposition of this case

From May 7, 2014 to August 29 of the same year, the Defendant: (a) was conducting a tax investigation on ○○○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as “○○○”); (b) the representative Kim○○○ of ○○ and KimAA (hereinafter referred to as “prior tax investigation”); (c) deemed the amount deposited by the Plaintiff from Kim○○ as the sales price for truck license; (d) registered the Plaintiff ex officio as the sales price for truck; and (e) on July 3, 2014, the Defendant determined and notified the Plaintiff of value-added tax amounting to KRW 38,258,350, value-added tax amounting to KRW 13,110,70, and global income tax amounting to KRW 6,452,970 pertaining to global income tax accrued in 209 (hereinafter referred to as “previous disposition”).

B. Implementation of the pre-trial procedure

The Plaintiff filed an appeal on September 25, 2014, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed it on December 22, 2014, and the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on January 2, 2015.

(c) Reduction and correction disposition and the instant disposition;

피고는 이 사건 소 계속 중인 2015. 6. 25.부터 2015. 12. 24.까지 원고 및 원고가대표이사로 있는 주식회사 AAA, 주식회사 BBB, 주식회사 CCC 등 6개 법인에 대한 통합조사를 실시한 후, 2015. 12. 29. 원고가 김○○로부터 입금받은 금액을 화물자동차 번호판 판매대금이 아닌 중개수수료로 보고(이 사건 소송 과정에서 원고가 주장한내용으로서 결국 원고의 주장을 대부분 수용한 것이다), 원고가 김○○ 외 다른 사람으로부터 입금받은 금액을 번호판 매매대금으로 보아 이 사건 종전처분을 다음과 같이 경정하였다(이하 이 사건 종전처분 중 감액경정 후 남은 부분을 ��이 사건 처분��이라 한다).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 6 evidence, Eul evidence 11 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. Main Safety Defenses

On December 29, 2015, the Defendant issued a decision to correct the reduction of the previous disposition of this case. As such, where the tax office ex officio corrected the disposition of income, and at the same time reduced the amount of tax as a whole by simultaneously reducing the increase in some items and other items, the same decision to correct the reduction.

The plaintiff is not a disposition to disadvantage the plaintiff who is a taxpayer, and thus the plaintiff's interest to seek its revocation.

shall be subject to this subsection.

B. Determination

The subject matter of a taxation disposition lawsuit is a general illegality that serves as the cause of revocation, and the subject matter of the judgment is objective existence of the tax base and tax amount, which are the tax obligations confirmed by the taxation disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Nu647, Apr. 11, 1989; 89Nu5386, Mar. 23, 1990). Whether the tax disposition is legitimate depends on whether the amount recognized by the disposition exceeds objectively legitimate and reasonable tax amount.

With respect to the instant case, the instant disposition that the Plaintiff asserted in the instant lawsuit remains remaining after the Defendant’s correction of reduction on December 29, 2015, and does not seek revocation of the said decision of reduction itself among the previous dispositions of this case. The Defendant’s defense of safety is without merit.

3. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Around June 2014, the Defendant actually conducted a tax investigation on the Plaintiff, but notified the Plaintiff of the same tax investigation on or around June 29, 2015 during the proceeding of the instant lawsuit, and conducted a reinvestigation contrary to Article 81-4 of the Framework Act on National Taxes. As a result of a double tax investigation among the instant dispositions, the Defendant was illegal secondary.

The tax disposition newly reflected on the basis of the tax investigation must be revoked.

2) Since the truck license plate commendations the right to permit trucking transport business, the trading of the truck license plate is practically transferring the trucking transport business. However, the "transfer of the business" does not correspond to the "supply of the goods subject to the value-added tax" under Article 10(8)2 of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 23 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. Therefore, the imposition of the value-added tax on the trading of the truck license plate is illegal, and the right to permit the transport business is a business asset for which the payer is fully refunded, and there is no practical benefit to impose the value-added tax.

3) The tax authorities have not imposed value-added tax on trucking number sales so far.

4) Of the instant disposition, the part pertaining to KRW 199,400 and KRW 699,700 of the brokerage commission of July 16, 2009 was derived from the Defendant’s erroneous assessment of the entire amount deposited by the Plaintiff in order to properly maintain the balance of the account, or the transaction without any difference, and the payment was made by erroneously linking the details of the deposit with the details of the deposit, and thus, it should be revoked illegally.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Whether the instant disposition was unlawful as it was based on a duplicate tax investigation

A) In order for a tax official to determine or correct the tax base and amount of national tax, a tax investigation refers to an act of asking questions to taxpayers, etc. by exercising his/her right of questioning, questioning or questioning, or inspecting, investigating or ordering submission of the relevant account books, documents or other articles (see Article 81-2(2)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 170 of the Income Tax Act), Article 81-4 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and Article 63-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act

If the investigation is allowed, there is a risk of infringing not only the taxpayer's freedom of business, privacy, but also the tax authority's arbitrary tax investigation, so it is trying to prevent abuse of tax investigation authority.

B) In light of the overall purport of evidence Nos. 4, 4, and 3, the subject of the prior tax investigation of this case was not the Plaintiff but the ○○○○, the representative director of which was Kim○, and KimA. The previous disposition of this case was made by means of calculating the amount verified by the purchase of the truck number plate of Maim○, out of the details deposited from Kim○’s account to the Plaintiff from the account of Kim○○, as the Plaintiff’s non-data sales amount, and then determining the amount of excess tax based on the non-data purchase amount recognized based on the account transaction details extracted and submitted by the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the previous disposition of this case was not based on the tax investigation of the Plaintiff’s account under the name of the Plaintiff, but was made as part of the disposition of taxation data after the tax investigation of Kim○, etc., and thus, the tax investigation conducted by the Defendant notified and conducted by the Plaintiff on June 29, 2015 does not constitute an unlawful reinvestigation prohibited under the Framework Act on National Taxes. This part

2) Whether the sale and purchase of a truck license plate can be seen as a business transfer

A) The former Value-Added Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 9915, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter the same)

Article 6 (6) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22043, Feb. 18, 2010; hereinafter the same) provides that "a transfer of business which is one of the items not considered the supply of goods and is prescribed by Presidential Decree" and Article 17 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22043, Feb. 18, 2010; hereinafter the same) provides that "a comprehensive succession of all rights and obligations concerning the business by place of business shall be made by place of business." In this case, the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "a comprehensive succession of the business shall be deemed to have been made by place of business without including those falling under any of the following subparagraphs among rights and obligations concerning the business." Meanwhile, Article 1 (1) of the former Value-Added Tax Act provides that "the supply of goods or services shall be imposed on each of the following transactions."

B) As to the instant case, the sale and purchase of the 'truck number plate' is the same as the sale of the 'right to use the 'motor vehicle registration number for the truck transport business' which is represented by the 'motor vehicle number plate'. The Plaintiff, upon the revision of the Trucking Transport Business Act on January 20, 2004, required the permission of the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport when he intends to operate the truck transport business. In principle, new permission and increased permission are prohibited and transactions are made with a premium formation on the 'motor vehicle registration number for the truck transport business' which is represented by the 'right to use the 'motor vehicle registration number plate for the truck transport business' in the truck transport business, it is difficult to view the 'right to use the 'motor vehicle number plate' as an essential element for the operation of the 'motor vehicle transport business' as the sale of the 'motor vehicle number plate', but it is not reasonable to view the above rights given to the 'motor vehicle number plate' as the 'motor vehicle number plate' in this case and all the 's property rights are not subject to taxation.

3) The part disputing the amount of brokerage commission

A) If a tax authority received a written confirmation from a taxpayer that a certain portion of a transaction is the processing transaction in the course of a tax investigation, barring special circumstances, such as that it is difficult to take the written confirmation as evidence of specific facts due to the person’s intent or lack of the content thereof, the evidence of the written confirmation cannot be readily denied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du2560, Dec. 6, 2002).

B) According to the above evidence, at the time of the tax investigation on December 1, 2015, the Plaintiff sold truck license plate without issuing a sales tax invoice to a transportation company, etc. from January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2012 (29,700,000, 84,300,000, 2000, 2011, 53,700,000,000, 53,700,000, 200, 200, 53,70,000, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200,000, 200,000, 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,00,000,00,07,00.

4) Determination on the assertion of non-taxable practices

In order to establish the good faith principle or non-taxation practice prescribed in Articles 15 and 18(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes with respect to the tax and legal relations, the tax authority’s act requires not only an objective fact that there was no tax imposed on certain matter for a long time, but also an intent that the tax authority will not impose tax on any specific matter with the knowledge that the tax authority may impose tax on the matter, and such intent will be externally and explicitly expressed explicitly or implicitly. “The tax-related law interpretation or practices accepted by the taxpayer” under Article 18(3) of the same Act refers to a case where a wrongful interpretation or practice is accepted by the general taxpayer who is not a specific taxpayer without any objection to the degree that it is not unreasonable for the taxpayer to trust such interpretation or practice (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Du19294, Apr. 15, 2010).

In light of the above legal principles, since the defendant found omission in the return of the plaintiff's value-added tax, etc. in the previous tax investigation process of the previous tax investigation of this case and immediately started to make the previous disposition of this case, it is difficult to deem that there was a non-taxation for a long time to the extent that no value-added tax was imposed on the trucking business operator prior to the disposition of this case, merely because of the fact that no value-added tax was imposed on the trucking business operator on the "trucking number plate", it is difficult to deem that there was a non-taxation for a long period of time, and the above circumstance alone alone is that the tax authorities have

4. Conclusion

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