Seocho 2012west 1812 (Ob. 28, 2012)

It can not be viewed as a tax invoice received according to an actual transaction.

Sub-level trading companies have determined that the form contract is prepared and only commission is received, and there is no objective evidence to verify that it is a normal transaction. Therefore, the issue tax invoice cannot be viewed as a tax invoice received according to a real transaction.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Article 26-2 of the National Tax Basic Act

2012 disposition of revocation of imposition of value-added tax, etc.

AAA, Inc.

The director of the tax office

June 20, 2013

August 13, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

on January 2, 2012, the value-added tax of No. 2001 against the Plaintiff on January 2, 201; and

The imposition of corporate tax for the business year 2001 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff (formerly: AAAA) is a company that combines a computer system, designs and development of software, provides information processing services, and lends computer resources. The Plaintiff purchased computer equipment from BBB (hereinafter “BB”) during the 2001 Value-Added Tax period, such as applied servers, and received one sheet of tax invoice ( = the supply value of OOO + value-added OOOOO(hereinafter “market tax invoice”), and related transactions.

B. From June 7, 2011 to August 15, 2011, the head of the Seoul Regional Tax Office conducted a general consolidated investigation of the Plaintiff’s corporate tax, and confirmed that the Plaintiff received the tax invoice from BB in relation to the key transaction without supplying goods, deducted input tax amount, and excluded OOOOO of the processing fee from deductible expenses, and notified the Defendant of the limitation period of 10 years pursuant to Article 26-2(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes.

C. Accordingly, on January 2, 2012, the Defendant issued a notice to the Plaintiff on January 2, 201 of the Value-Added Tax No. 2001 and the OOOO in the business year 2001 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. On March 30, 2012, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, brought an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on March 30, 2012, and was dismissed on June 28, 2012.

[Reasons for Recognition] The entry into Gap and Eul evidence 1, and Eul evidence 1 and the whole purport of the pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(i) a tax invoice consistent with the facts;

The plaintiff is not a tax invoice different from the fact because the plaintiff selected and ordered BB as the subcontractor for the purchase of computer equipment to be supplied to the Korea Railroad and received the tax invoice at issue.

2) A bona fide transaction party

BB is not the actual supplier of the related computer equipment, and the plaintiff was unaware of the fact that there was a real supplier, not BB, in the regular transaction with BB, and was not aware of the fact that there was a real supplier.

(iii) the exclusion period Do;

The plaintiff did not perform any act that makes it impossible or considerably difficult to impose and collect taxes because it was normally delivered a tax invoice, and paid the price, so it is improper to apply the special exclusion period under Article 26-2 (1) 1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and the general five-year exclusion period should be applied, and the disposition in this case is unlawful with the exclusion period imposed.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form. The entry in the relevant statutes is as follows.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) The Plaintiff was awarded a contract from the Railroad Agency for the Integrated Management System Development Project of the Railroad Agency (hereinafter referred to as the “System Development Project”). On November 22, 2001, the Plaintiff drafted a “written order for the purchase and installation of computer equipment” to BB, and thereafter received tax invoices from BB. The cost of installation and technical support on the order form and other OOOOO personnel are the cost of computer equipment.

2) With respect to the following, BB received each tax invoice from CCC Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “CCC”), and CCC received each tax invoice from DD (hereinafter referred to as “DD”) and EE Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “EE”), and EE from FF, and FF from “GG” (hereinafter referred to as “GGG”).

Level

Enterprise

Value of supply ($00,000)

Enterprise

Value of supply ($00,000)

1

BB

OOO

2

CCC

OOO

3

DD

OOO

EE

5

FF

6

GG

3) On January 25, 2002, 2002, the Plaintiff provided, at BB, OOO won on the tax invoice as four checks (OOO won, OOO won, and OOO won). Of these, two of them are identical to the supply price of the tax invoice issued by D and GG (i.e., the supply price of DD + OOO won of value-added tax + value-added tax + OOOOO won of supply price + value-added tax + OOOOO won of the supply price of GG). While the head of the business division in charge of BB received the above check, he was a private person on the deposit account, it was not actually deposited in the passbook of modern information technology.

4) On the other hand, on December 31, 2001, CCC concluded an assignment contract with the content that it transfers OCOs to DD among the amount that CCC receives from BB, and that it transfers OOs to DD.

5) BB before the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office conducted a tax investigation with respect to the Plaintiff, the director of the Gangnam District Tax Office, around 2010, made a tax investigation with respect to BB on suspicion of receipt of data, and in the course of the tax investigation, the following persons related to BB and sub-corporate were stated to the effect that the system integration company (SI) such as BB issued a tax invoice at the trading stage for the sales performance, and that the tax invoice was also stated in this court.

[The chief of the division in charge of the business of modern information technology H]

For the end of the year, the plaintiff's business performance was requested by the director of the third business division, and the director of the third division accepted, and on December 2001, the plaintiff's head office directly entered into a direct contract with the purchase team with the employee of the corporation with the employee of the corporation. BB was not actually supplied or supplied, and due to pressure on sales, the equipment development entity made sales by the equipment development entity. BB did not grasp the cost by receiving the subcontract. BB did not have any negotiation on the product form or transaction terms with the CCC, but only entered into the contract formally, and traded with the plaintiff after being designated the purchase price with the CC.

【BB Minister of Justice of the Department of Accounting】

In the absence of a consortium, there is no reason for the Plaintiff to re-consign BB, and the transaction details related to the tax invoice are merely mere goods supply, and the services of BB were not included in BB, and there is no reason to add BB to CCC, which is not a fixed transaction place, as OOO. In fact, the payment was not made in the passbook.

[CCC Management KK]

At the time, the transaction structure is only 4% of the supply price plus value-added tax invoice issued by BB, and the service fee is only a processing transaction because there is no reason to do so to increase sales in the structure. BB, CCC, EE, and DD executives and employees agreed upon and completed a contract, and issued each party sales and purchase tax invoice. CCC acquired 4% of the supply price(=OOO's price + value-added tax + value-added tax OO's price) as the service fee, and the issue is a processing transaction without any real transaction.

[Ground of Recognition] The parts of Gap evidence 4, 9, and 2, and 3 through 8, witness KK, HH, and JJ testimony, and witness LL testimony

D. Determination

1) It is necessary to prove that the tax authority has a false tax invoice different from the fact, and that if the tax authority conducted a reasonable verification to the extent that it reasonably acceptable on the basis of the direct evidence or circumstances, and that the taxpayer who is dissatisfied with it and is easy to present relevant evidence and materials is not a false tax invoice (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du1439, Aug. 20, 2009). Meanwhile, if the tax authority received a written confirmation from the taxpayer as a person who is carrying out a certain tax requirement from the taxpayer in the course of the tax investigation, barring special circumstances, such as the taxpayer’s signature and seal by force against his/her will or it is difficult for the taxpayer to be considered as a supporting material for the specific facts due to its deficiencies, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Du2928, May 22, 1998; 201Du2560, Dec. 6, 2002).

B) In light of the following circumstances known in the above facts, and the tax invoice is not supplied to the extent that the issue is proven to the extent that it is a false tax invoice prepared differently by the supplier. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is not sufficient to recognize the actual service provided by BB, and there is no other evidence to support the witness evidence and witness LL, in light of the following circumstances:

① In relation to the instant transaction, BB’s H and J, CCC, and KK were jointly used, and the Plaintiff was awarded a contract for construction, and only BB received tax invoices without actual provision of services or provision of goods; CCC has issued tax invoices to BB without actual transactions; and CCC has made specific statements on the process of consultation or the process of issuing tax invoices; and there are no special circumstances, such as: (a) written answer against the intent of the person who made the statement is prepared or contradictory to objective evidence; and (b) relevant persons have clearly made statements when taking an oath and testimony in this Court; and (c) there is credibility in the content of the statement.

② The Plaintiff paid the amount in lump sum by dividing the amount related to the instant transaction into four occasions without dividing it into two parts: (a) the sales division, and (b) the amount by dividing it into four parts; and (c) the check is consistent with the amount of tax invoice issued by the sub-company; and (d) the contract was made so that money is paid through the transfer of credit to the de facto sub-company; and (b) the Plaintiff appears to have paid the amount by discussing in advance related to the instant transaction so that the intermediate company can directly pay the amount without going through the intermediate company even though it was aware that the intermediate company was entering into a formal contract with respect to the instant transaction.

③ Although 'OOO' is included in BB as the cost of installation and technical support of BB, 'OOO' is not included in the other BB's service provision, there is no objective data proving that the BB actually provided technical support, and 'BB' was carried out in the projects belonging to the Korean National Railroad System Development Team in connection with the related trade, and 'LL' was carried out in BB on a daily basis, and it is not deemed that the BB actually carried out the work in view of the fact that there has been no long time, including the fact that there was no evidence that the manpower was in charge of the Korean National Railroad System Development Project, and that there was no actual person in charge of the transaction.

2) Whether the trading party is bona fide

A) Unless there are special circumstances, the actual supplier and the supplier on a tax invoice may not deduct or refund the input tax amount unless there is any negligence on the part of the person who received the other tax invoice in the name of the supplier, and the person who received the other tax invoice shall prove that there is no negligence on the part of the person who did not know the above fact in the name of the invoice (Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277 Decided June 28, 2002).

B) As seen earlier, as seen earlier, and HH related persons: (a) the Plaintiff entered into a contract related to the instant transaction in consultation with the director of the third division; (b) the Plaintiff was instructed by CCC to receive a tax invoice; (c) the Plaintiff agreed to issue a tax invoice in consultation with CCC, DD, and EE personnel; and (d) the payment was made in line with the issuance of the tax invoice; and (c) the Plaintiff, BB, and CCC did not know that BB was not the actual supplier.

3) Whether the exclusion period for imposition of ten years is applied

A) According to Article 26-2(1)1 and 3 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 6782 of Dec. 18, 2002, hereinafter the same), and national taxes can not be imposed after the expiration of the five-year period from the date on which the national tax is assessable, but in cases where a taxpayer evades national taxes by fraudulent or other unlawful means, national taxes can be imposed for ten years. "Fraud and other unlawful acts" here mean deceptive or other active acts that make it impossible or considerably difficult to impose and collect taxes.

In addition, Article 16 (1) 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that the tax invoice shall be prepared by stating the registration number and name and the name of the supplier, and Article 17 (2) 1-2 of the same Act provides that the input tax shall not be deducted if the necessary matters are not entered or entered differently from the fact.

However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff received false tax invoices in collusion with subordinate companies, such as BB, in order to make the sales of BB, without actual transactions, and it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff constitutes "an active act" because it constitutes "an act in which the tax authority makes it impossible or considerably difficult to impose and collect taxes by forging false tax invoices through disguised processing transactions, and it constitutes "an act in which the tax authority makes it impossible or considerably difficult to impose and collect taxes by forging documentary evidence or contracts as if it were actual transactions."

Therefore, the exclusion period for the imposition of value-added tax and corporate tax related to the tax invoice at issue is ten years, and the disposition at this case is clear in fact that it was conducted from January 26, 2002, which is the date on which the second value-added tax can be imposed in 2001, and from April 1, 2002, which is the date on which the corporate tax in 2001 can be imposed in 10 years from April 1, 2002 to 10 years, so the prior plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit

4. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.