It is a disguised transaction that receives tax invoices from an enterprise unrelated to transaction and is subject to additional tax on documentary evidence collection.

In fact, not receiving a tax invoice from an enterprise that actually supplied goods but received a tax invoice from an enterprise that is not related to the transaction, so the transaction in this case constitutes a disguised transaction subject to the penalty tax for lack of documentary evidence of disbursement.

2012Guhap596 Revocation of Disposition of Corporate Tax Imposition

QQ농산 주식회사

Head of the Office of Government

June 19, 2012

July 10, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 000 of the additional tax for collecting documentary evidence of corporate tax for the year 2006 against the Plaintiff on August 9, 201 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff was issued four copies of the tax invoice (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) equivalent to the total value of supply from BB Product Industries Co., Ltd. during the 2006 taxable period (hereinafter “B Product Industries”).

B. On August 9, 201, the Defendant, and the Plaintiff, among the instant tax invoices received from BB product, deemed that the transaction of goods (hereinafter “the instant transaction”) constituted a disguised transaction by receiving the tax invoice from BB product even though they actually purchased the goods from 8 other than the instant tax invoices, and on August 9, 201, the Defendant corrected and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 00 of the additional tax not paid for the instant transaction and KRW 000 of the additional tax not paid for the instant transaction (hereinafter “the additional tax for the failure to obtain the disbursement of corporate tax for the year 2006”).

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed a request with the Tax Tribunal on August 16, 201, but the said request was dismissed on November 29, 201.

[Ground of Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1, 2, and Eul evidence 1, and the whole purport of the pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

According to Article 76(5) of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8141 of Dec. 30, 2006), the additional tax on the receipt of the documentary evidence of disbursement applies only to the case where the actual transaction was not received, and the Plaintiff received the documentary evidence of disbursement concerning the transaction in this case. However, only the supplier of the transaction in this case was entered differently from the fact. Nevertheless, the instant disposition imposing the additional tax on the receipt of the documentary evidence of disbursement was made based on the expanded interpretation or analogical interpretation of the legal provision in this case, and was contrary to the principle of prohibition of retroactive taxation (amended by Act No. 9898 of Dec. 31, 2009).

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes shall be as follows.

C. Determination

Article 116 (2) provides that the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment shall collect as corporate tax an amount calculated by adding 2/100 of the unpaid amount to 2/100 where a corporation (excluding corporations prescribed by the Presidential Decree) is supplied with goods or services from an enterpriser prescribed by the Presidential Decree in connection with its business, and fails to receive evidential documents as provided for in any subparagraph of Article 116 (2). The main sentence of Article 116 (2) provides that "if a corporation is supplied goods or services from an enterpriser prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and pays the price, he shall receive and keep evidential documents falling under any of the following subparagraphs." On the other hand, Article 16 (2) of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8142 of Dec. 30, 2006) provides that "any person who actually supplies goods or services from a person who actually supplies goods or services from another person who is liable for tax payment at the time prescribed by the Presidential Decree" is not the one who actually provides goods or services.

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.