Scope of value-added tax base for cargo transport services

The value-added tax base for cargo transport services is the total transport cost received by the Plaintiff, not the transport fee, because the transport is carried out under the responsibility of the Plaintiff regardless of the consignment.

Article 13 of the Value-Added Tax Act

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant's disposition of imposition of value-added tax of 10,258,500 won for the second period of 201 against the plaintiff on April 3, 2006 and value-added tax of 2,782,150 won for the first period of 202 shall be revoked.

This Court's reasoning is the same as the entry of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this Court's reasoning is acceptable in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Seoul Administrative Court 2007Guhap1290, 2007.19]

1. The plaintiff's request is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The Defendant’s disposition of adding value-added tax of KRW 10,258,500 and value-added tax of KRW 2,782,150 for the second quarter of 2001 against the Plaintiff on April 3, 2006 shall be revoked.

1. Details of disposition;

A. The head of ○○○ Tax Office confirmed that the Plaintiff received transportation expenses of KRW 67,100,000 from the non-party company during the second and the first taxable period of the value-added tax in 2001, and notified the Defendant as taxation data, as a result of the investigation into the non-party company’s ○○ Transportation (hereinafter “non-party company”).

B. According to the above taxation data, the Defendant considered the transportation cost as omission in sales, and corrected the value-added tax, and issued a disposition to impose the Plaintiff’s purport of the claim (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, 2-2, Eul evidence 1-1, 1-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff was requested by the non-party company to provide transportation services to the non-party company, and the amount of 10% of the total amount of transportation commission was received as commission for transportation brokerage, and the disposition of this case that imposed value-added tax on the plaintiff on the total amount of transportation commission is unlawful.

(b) Fact of recognition;

(1) On December 7, 1998, the Plaintiff had the head of ○○ Tax Office’s trade name, the location of ○○○○-dong ○○○○-dong ○○○○-dong ○○○-dong dong ○○○-dong dong ○○-dong dong dong dong dong as a truck transport brokerage business and had it registered as a business and operated a business as a

(2) The Plaintiff received a total of KRW 52,246,00 for the second period of 201, total of KRW 14,854,000 for the first period of 2002, but did not issue a tax invoice at all. Of the shipping agents, who transported the freight of the non-party company on their behalf, did not issue a tax invoice to the non-party company.

(3) The non-party company did not enter into a separate contract of carriage with the transportation business entity that transported the freight of the non-party company on behalf of the plaintiff, or paid the transportation cost, and paid the full amount to the plaintiff without distinguishing transportation cost and transportation brokerage fee

(4) The Defendant: (a) determined that the Plaintiff was negligent in reporting and paying value-added tax while running a transportation business in a place of business separate from the above ○○ Transportation registered as a trucking transport business without business registration; (b) granted ex officio a business registration number; and (c) determined and imposed value-added tax and additional tax during the second and the first taxable period of 201, 2002, on July 1, 2001, deeming that the Plaintiff started the business and closed the business on June 30, 2002.

C. Determination

According to the above facts, the other party who entered into a transport contract with the non-party company is the plaintiff, and the plaintiff is responsible for the transportation regardless of whether the plaintiff voluntarily delivers the cargo or entrusts another transport business operator with the transportation, and even if the plaintiff deducteds the amount equivalent to his freight forwarding commission and paid the remainder to the other transport business operator, it is only a legal relation between the transportation business operator and the plaintiff (in this relation, the other transport business operator is liable to pay value-added tax on the transportation service provided to the plaintiff). Thus, the disposition of this case imposing value-added tax on the transportation service provided to the non-party company with the non-party company as the plaintiff's taxpayer is legitimate, and the plaintiff's assertion that the disposition of this case is unlawful in violation of the substantial taxation principle or the underlying taxation principle

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.