early 2012 Heavy0466 (201.03.08)

It is not true that the Plaintiff’s good faith or negligence is not recognized as a false tax invoice

In comparison with the shipping details by vehicle prepared by the oil refining company, the oil transport vehicle and the date of transport indicated in the shipping slip of the customer is a false tax invoice in light of the fact that the order and the destination of the oil are completely different from the place of destination, and the Plaintiff was not negligent in failing to take any particular measures other than the confirmation of the trader’s business registration certificate and the petroleum selling business registration certificate.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2012Guhap1933 Revocation of Disposition of Value-Added Tax Correction

AA

Head of the Pakistan Tax Office

March 12, 2013

March 26, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of correction and notification of value-added tax of KRW 100 for the first period of August 1, 2009 and KRW 000 for the second period of 2009, each of which was made by the Plaintiff on August 1, 201.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 28, 2008, the Plaintiff was engaged in the wholesale and retail business under the trade name of "EEEE gas station" (hereinafter referred to as the "oil station in this case") at the time of strike, which was closed on August 31, 2009." (B) The Plaintiff received five copies of the purchase tax invoice (hereinafter referred to as the "tax invoice in this case") by being supplied with oil equivalent to the total supply value of the FF (hereinafter referred to as "F") at the point of OEF during the 2nd VAT taxable period in 2009, by deducting the relevant input tax amount from the output tax amount.

C. On August 1, 201, the Defendant deemed that the instant tax invoice was a tax invoice different from the fact, and accordingly, deducted the relevant input tax amount from the output tax amount, and revised and notified the Plaintiff of value-added tax amounting to KRW 00 for the first period of August 1, 2009 and KRW 000 for the second period of August 2009 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an objection on September 16, 201 with the Tax Tribunal on December 22, 201, but was dismissed on March 8, 2012.

[Ground of Recognition] The facts without dispute, the entries in Gap 1, 3, and 4 (including household numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Plaintiff actually purchased oil from F and received the instant tax invoice, the instant tax invoice is not a false tax invoice. Even if the instant tax invoice is false, the Plaintiff constitutes a party to good faith, since it completed necessary verification and evidence expenses for a normal transaction. Therefore, the instant disposition denying the input tax deduction by deeming the instant tax invoice as a false tax invoice is unlawful.

(b) Fact of recognition;

1) Oil distributed in the Republic of Korea shall be shipped out of four oil refineriess, and oil transport shall be limited to vehicles registered as hazardous materials transport vehicles. Oil refining companies shall issue Chapter 4 of the shipment slips indicating the order, the transport vehicle, the date and time of shipment, the arrival, the quantity and condition of the oil, etc. in the oil reservoir, and the two Chapters 2 shall be kept by the oil refining company, and the remainder shall be provided to the article of the oil transport vehicle for submission at the place of destination after obtaining confirmation.

2) Oils shall be entered in the shipment slip of the oil company, in which the volume varies depending on the type and proportion, the temperature, weight, oil storage, shipping source, confirmation mark, the shipper's signature, tank cryp, etc. are entered at the beginning level, and the date of issuance are entered at the beginning level, depending on the date and place of shipment listed in the shipment slip. The oil station, etc. in receipt of oil may verify whether the oil is refined by comparing the estimated transport time from the place of shipment to the place of destination with the actual transport time.

3) From August 26, 2009 to March 16, 2010, Seoul regional tax office conducted a value-added tax investigation on FF (in data) on F, and as a result, it was confirmed that: (i) the FFO branch's first period in 2009; (ii) the 000 won, 97% out of the second purchase amount in 000; (iii) the processing purchase amount was 97.3% out of the sales amount in the same period; (iv) the 000 won, 97.3% out of the sales amount in the same period, and (v) the 0000 OO 00 located in Nowon-gu, Seoul, where the OOdong branch was located, did not own oil storage facilities or oil transport vehicles; and (iv) there was no congestion using facilities or vehicles at the head office.

4) In addition, tax invoices supplied by F are included in the above tax investigation, (i) II energy,GG energy, and H energy, and (ii) these purchasing places do not appear in the oil refining company, and (iii) the tax invoices delivered by FF include the Plaintiff, the OOO, and M oil, and the details of the carriage by customer are different from the details of the shipment and the details of the carriage submitted by the oil refining company.

5) The above purchaser of II Energy, etc. demanded FF to recover the shipment slips issued by oil refining companies, and FF to recover the shipment slips issued by oil refining companies from the above seller by the Plaintiff et al. and return them to II Energy.

6) Instead, FF issued its own shipment slips and delivered them to the above selling places of the Plaintiff et al., and the oil transport vehicles and the date on which FF issuance are listed in the shipment slips by vehicle prepared by the oil refining company are different at all from the place of destination by the orderer of the oil in comparison with the shipment details by vehicle prepared by the oil refining company. In addition, the shipment slips of FF issuance include only the place of destination between the orderer and the destination of the oil (in the case of the oil station, the oil station, the failing (in the case, the volume, the number, the number and the number of the oil, and the vehicle number and the recipient (in part omitted).

7) Before the operation of the station in this case, the Plaintiff had worked at JJ station(business operator: KK and business operator registration number: 000, and : 008. End of September 30, 2008. In addition, the Plaintiff had worked at J station during the 2009 and the 20th Value-Added Tax period, 'J station' (business operator: YL and 000, : 00, 000, : 000, and 1: 00, 2008, 300, 200, 200, and 300, and 1). The Plaintiff received purchase tax invoices from the previous J station and 200, 200, 200, 200, 300, 200, 300, 200, 300, 200, 201, 10, 201, 200.

8) The Plaintiff was directly supplied with oil from oil stations such as NEnergy Co., Ltd. in addition to FF.

[Ground of Recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence 7, 10, and Eul evidence 2 to 7 (including paper numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

C. Determination

1) Whether the instant tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice

Article 17 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9915, Jan. 1, 2010) provides that input tax amount shall not be deducted from output tax amount if the entries of the tax invoice are different from the facts. In this case, if the title of income, number, calculation, act or transaction which is the object of taxation is nominal, and there is another person to whom such title actually belongs, the person to whom such title belongs shall be liable for tax payment in light of the purpose of the Framework Act on National Taxes that the necessary entries of the tax invoice are applied to the goods or service, and the cases where the necessary entries of the tax invoice are inconsistent with those of the parties to the transaction, such as the owner, price, and time of the goods or service, regardless of the formal entries of the tax invoice entered between the parties to the transaction, which were entered in the tax invoice and the FF invoice issued on December 10, 196. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s submission of the tax invoice to the FF invoice was not made with regard to the goods or service, but with regard to those other reasons.

2) Whether the Plaintiff constitutes good faith and negligence

If the actual supplier and the supplier under the tax invoice are different from the actual supplier's entries, and there is no negligence on the part of the supplier due to lack of knowledge of the name of the tax invoice, the input tax amount can not be deducted or refunded, and the supplier is not negligent in not knowing the above fact (see Supreme Court Decision 97Nu4920, Jun. 27, 1997). Furthermore, in light of the developments leading up to the issuance and delivery of the tax invoice, the price of the goods or services supplied, and the specific route and process in which the goods or services were supplied, the supplier did not know of the actual supplier's place of business or business facilities, and the supplier did not know of the fact that there was no negligence on the part of the supplier, but the supplier did not know of the fact that the supplier did not actually operate the tax invoice, but did not know of the fact that the supplier did not actually know of the name of the FF, and that the supplier did not know of the fact that the supplier did not have any other reason, in light of the above legal principles, it is difficult to find that the Plaintiff did not know that it supplied.

3. Conclusion

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