The early 2013 Mine3995

Disposition to revoke imposition;

The plaintiff is the owner of butane injecting the tank lorri vehicle. The plaintiff is the owner of butane mixed with the propane purchased from the screen wholesaler. It is reasonable to impose the individual consumption tax on the plaintiff as it enjoys economic benefits using differences in the rates of butane and propane.

Article 1 of the Individual Consumption Tax Act (Taxable Object and Tax Rate)

2014Guhap10097 Such revocation of imposition, including individual consumption tax

○○ Chungcheong Co., Ltd. 5

○○ Head of Tax Office 3

May 29, 2014

July 3, 2014

1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

On July 5, 2013, the head of ○○○ Tax Office imposed individual consumption tax and other individual consumption tax on Plaintiff ○○○○○○○ on Plaintiff ○○○ Pakdea, and imposed individual consumption tax and other individual consumption tax on Plaintiff ○○○○○ on Plaintiff ○○ gas; the imposition of individual consumption tax and other individual consumption tax imposed on Plaintiff ○○○ on July 4, 2013 by Defendant ○○○ Tax Office; the imposition of the individual consumption tax and other tax imposed on Plaintiff ○ Popa Co., Ltd. on Plaintiff ○ Popa on July 1, 2013 by Defendant ○○ Tax Office; the imposition of the individual consumption tax and other individual consumption tax on Plaintiff ○ Popa on July 5, 2013 by Defendant ○○ Tax Office; and the imposition of the individual consumption tax and other individual consumption tax on Plaintiff ○ Popa on June 3, 2013.

1. Basic facts

A. Status of the plaintiffs

Under the following, the plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff 1-6") are entrepreneurs who engage in the business of filling and selling liquefied petroleum gas for vehicle fuel with numbers as shown in the plaintiff's column.

B. As a result of the investigation into the Plaintiffs by the director of the regional regional tax office and the notification to the Defendants, the director of the regional tax office: (a) conducted an investigation into the distribution process of fake petroleum products with the Plaintiffs from November 1, 2012 to November 20, 2012; (b) Plaintiff 1 was from January 1, 201 to March 2012; (c) Plaintiff 2 was from October 201 to June 2012; (d) Plaintiff 3 was identified as the Defendants’ goods storage tank number on an individual container to be removed from the Defendant’s store store to the Plaintiff’s store store store; and (e) Plaintiff 5 was identified as the Defendants’ order from November 1, 2010 to November 20, 2012 to the Plaintiff’s order to remove them from the Defendant’s store store to the Plaintiff’s store store with the Defendant’s order to put them out of the storage tank with the Defendant’s three to 2011.

C. Imposition of individual consumption tax and education tax on the plaintiffs of the defendants

① Accordingly, on July 5, 2013, Defendant 1: (a) ○○○○○ upon Plaintiff 1’s arrival from January 1, 2011 to March 3, 2012; (b) the individual consumption tax and education tax (including individual consumption tax; and (c) the individual consumption tax and education tax (hereinafter “individual consumption tax, etc.”) reverted to Plaintiff 2; (b) the individual consumption tax, etc. reverted to Plaintiff 2 from October 2010 to June 2012; (c) the individual consumption tax and individual consumption tax, etc. reverted to Plaintiff 3 from March 3, 2010 to May 2012; and (d) the individual consumption tax and individual consumption tax belongs to Plaintiff 4 from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2013; and (e) the individual consumption tax and individual consumption tax reverted to Plaintiff 4 from July 21, 2013 to Plaintiff ○○○ on May 21, 2013.

(d) Procedures of the previous trial; and

The Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with each of the instant dispositions and filed a petition with the Tax Tribunal for a trial on August 22, 2013, but was dismissed on November 20, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 7, Eul evidence 1

Each entry, the purport of the whole pleading, including the number

2. The plaintiffs' assertion or related laws

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

1) misunderstanding the subject of imposition liability, such as individual consumption tax

The act of manufacturing and taking out taxable goods, such as mixing propane and butane, is performed under the equipment and responsibility of the business place of the professional board wholesalers, and the business place of the professional board wholesalers equipped with the above facilities, etc. falls under a manufacturing place, and thus, the Plaintiffs are not directly manufacturers of liquefied petroleum gas, but the Plaintiffs cannot be viewed as a person mixing propane and but a person mixing propane for the purpose of selling at a place other than a manufacturing place. The persons liable to pay individual consumption tax, etc. are manufacturers of propane.

2) Illegal imposition of penalty tax

Even if the Plaintiffs are liable to pay taxes, the Plaintiffs did not fully participate in the mixture and removal of propane and but did not know that they are taxpayers of individual consumption tax and education tax. Therefore, there is a justifiable reason to neglect reporting and tax liability. Therefore, the imposition of additional tax is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

3. Whether each disposition of this case is legitimate;

(a) Facts of recognition;

The following facts are acknowledged in full view of the aforementioned facts and the written evidence Nos. 2 and 3 as well as the purport of the entire pleadings.

1) After being released from a tank loaded in a tank lorri vehicle, the Plaintiffs moved the tank lorri vehicle to a professional wholesale company (new energy, high energy, limited liability company, and peace energy) to a tank lorri vehicle, and then put the business board ordered by the professional wholesale company into the tank lorri vehicle, and sold it to the tank lorri vehicle. The Plaintiffs removed from their workplace lorri vehicle to the tank lorri vehicle.

(ii)where a vehicle engineer employed by the plaintiffs enters a tank glass vehicle into a professional board wholesale company, he measured the weight of tank lorries installed in the vicinity of the business site of the professional board wholesale company, and then injects the ordered volume into the tank lorri vehicle into the tank lorri vehicle, then measure the weight of the tank lorri vehicle, and record and manage the details of the sale by calculating the difference between the weight of the tank lorri vehicle at the time of storage and delivery.

3) A vehicle engineer employed by the Plaintiffs visited the company’s own professional board wholesalers to injecting the professional board, and the company did not transport or directly supply the list to the business establishment of the Plaintiffs.

B. Determination

1) Whether the Plaintiffs are liable for tax payment

Article 3 and Article 5 (1) 1 (c) of the Individual Consumption Tax Act imposes tax liability on the person who makes a mixture of propane and butane for the purpose of sale at a place which is not a manufacturing place.

In light of the following circumstances revealed through the facts and evidence as seen earlier, the Plaintiffs committed a mixture of propane and butane for the purpose of selling at a place which is not a manufacturing place. As such, the Plaintiffs constitute persons liable to pay individual consumption tax, etc. pursuant to Articles 3 and 5(1)(c) of the Individual Consumption Tax Act.

(1) Since liquefied petroleum gas manufacturing place refers to the place of business of a liquefied petroleum gas manufacturer, the mixture of propane and butane at a manufacturing place refers to the mixture of propane and butane at a manufacturer’s place of business. Therefore, if a person, other than a manufacturer, mix propane and butane, it constitutes the mixture of propane and but rather a manufacturing place. If the plaintiffs are mixed with propane and but the propane at the place of business of a propane wholesaler, who is not a liquefied petroleum gas manufacturer, is not a liquefied petroleum gas manufacturer, it constitutes the mixture of propane and but for the purpose of sale at a place other than a manufacturing place.

② The act of mixing propane and but the work of mixing propane was conducted using the facilities of the propane wholesalers at the place of business of the propane wholesalers. However, the propane wholesalers merely injected them into the tank loaded in the tank lorri vehicle as ordered by the Plaintiffs, and paid the price therefor. Therefore, even though the Plaintiffs used the propane facility by the propane wholesalers, it should be deemed that the Plaintiffs purchased materials, and then requested the others to provide only manufacturing services.

③ Bhutan that was injected into a tank loaded on a tank lorri vehicle is purchased by the Plaintiff, and is owned by the Plaintiff and falls under the Plaintiff as well as butane that was mixed with propane purchased from a propane wholesaler. As such, a propane wholesaler is merely a person who conducts manufacturing services using his/her gas injecting facility, and is not a manufacturer of taxable goods nor a person who manufactures taxable goods.

④ In this case, the Plaintiff also acknowledges that the combination of propane and butane is subject to imposition of individual consumption tax, etc. However, the mixture of propane and but the mixture of propane itself does not fall under the control area of the propane wholesalers, because it is merely a mixture of propane and but does not fall under the control area of the propane wholesalers, regardless of the profits earned by the propane wholesalers through the sale of propane, it is difficult for them to control the propane and but, in light of the circumstance that the mixture of propane and but is not controlled by them.

In light of these circumstances, deeming the subject of the obligation to pay individual consumption tax as the pro-market wholesaler is considerably unfair.

⑤ If the Plaintiffs purchased and sold a mixture of propane and butane, the Plaintiffs purchased a mixture of butane at the price included in the individual consumption tax as at the time of the purchase. Since only a propane was paid from a propane wholesaler and sold the propane to the consumers, thereby enjoying economic benefits by using a difference between the rates of butane and propane, it is reasonable to impose individual consumption tax on the Plaintiffs who enjoy economic benefits.

2) Whether the imposition of additional tax is illegal

Under the tax law, penalty taxes are administrative sanctions imposed pursuant to the law in cases where a taxpayer violates a duty to report and pay taxes, etc. as prescribed by the law without justifiable grounds in order to facilitate the exercise of the right to impose taxes and the realization of a tax claim, and the taxpayer’s intentional and negligent acts do not constitute justifiable grounds (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Du1829, May 23, 2013). Moreover, inasmuch as there are conflicting opinions due to significance in the interpretation of the tax law, the determination that the taxpayer is exempted from the duty to pay taxes, etc. by interpretation of his/her own name does not constitute merely because it is merely a site or misunderstanding of the law, and thus does not constitute justifiable grounds that do not constitute a breach of such duty (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Du1776, Jun. 27, 2013).

In light of the above legal principles, even if the plaintiffs did not know that the act of mixing and removing professional plates and but did not know that the act is liable for tax payment, the land or mistake in the law cannot be deemed a justifiable ground for the plaintiffs to neglect their duty to report and pay taxes, and even if the plaintiffs erred in the determination that the duty to pay taxes is exempted by the interpretation of the name, it cannot be deemed that there is a conflict of opinion as to the fact that the plaintiffs' act constitutes the act of manufacturing. Thus, it cannot be deemed as a justifiable ground for not being attributable to the violation of the duty to pay taxes due to the negligence of the land or mistake in the law.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim against the defendants of this case is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.