Appropriateness of a disposition taken to deduct the undeductible amount of land purchase tax owned by others

Even if the supply of certain goods or services used for his own business increases the real value of the land owned by another person, it cannot be deemed as an input tax amount, and thus, it shall be deducted as an input tax amount.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Article 60 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act

1. The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax for the second period of 2003 against the Plaintiff on April 12, 2005 (1,848,900 won, value-added tax for the first period of 204 (29,194,370 won, and value-added tax for the second period of 2 years of 2004 (166,289,590 won) shall be revoked.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 18, 2003, the Plaintiff, a juristic person operating a golf course (○○○ consortium), obtained a loan from ○○○○-dong, ○○○-dong, and used land of approximately KRW 163,943 square meters for five parcels, other than ○○-dong, ○○-si, ○○○○-si, and owned by ○○○○-si (hereinafter “instant land’s marks”). However, annual rent of KRW 3,00,000, and annual rent of KRW 1,000, from April 1, 2005 to March 31, 2025, the Plaintiff concluded a public golf course loan agreement with ○○-si, ○○-si, and established a construction project on the instant land.

B. Upon reporting value-added tax to the Defendant, the Plaintiff declared each of the input tax amount of KRW 2,573,152,00 as the input tax amount deducted from the Plaintiff’s output tax amount for the second period of 2003, the second period of 31,447,00 won, and KRW 734,704,00 in the first period of 204, and KRW 2,573,152,00 in the second period of 204.

C. However, on April 12, 2005, the Defendant issued a disposition of imposition of KRW 15,00,000 on February 15, 2003, KRW 247,830,00 on January 2, 2004, KRW 1,481,025 on February 2, 2004, Article 17(2)4 of the Value-Added Tax Act, and Article 60(6) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act on Article 17(2)4 of the Value-Added Tax Act, and Article 60(6) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act on the basis that the amount of input tax related to the capital expenditure for the creation, etc. of the land for which the deduction of the input tax amount is not allowed to be deducted from the output tax amount. On April 12, 2005, the Defendant issued a disposition of imposition of KRW 1,848,900 on February 2, 2003, Value-Added Tax amounting 294

Costs of creating land-related creation

(unit: 1,00 won)

Trade Name;

Details of the Corporation

Amount of public capital equivalent to the amount of

203.2

100 1. 1

204.2

Consolidateds

○○ Co., Ltd.

Civil Works Corporation

500,000

500,000

○○ Co., Ltd.

Civil Works Corporation

378,567

378,567

○ Stock Company

Suspension Work

363,636

363,636

Limited liability company ○

Land Purchase

85,522

150,772

236,294

Limited liability company ○

Waste treatment

97,100

97,100

○○ Co., Ltd.

Traffic Impact Assessment

18,000

32,000

50,000

○

Land Purchase

19,272

21,217

40,489

○

Land Purchase

25,956

25,956

○○ Co., Ltd.

COSS design

25,000

25,000

○○ Co., Ltd.

Change of Urban Planning

15,000

15,000

○

Self-helping Works

1,980

3,474

5,454

○

Land Purchase

6,360

6,360

Consolidateds

15,000

247,830

1,481,026

1,743,856

D. On May 18, 2005, the Plaintiff filed a request for review with the National Tax Tribunal on May 18, 2005, but was dismissed on January 19, 2006 and filed the instant lawsuit on April 17, 2006.

Facts that there is no dispute over recognition, evidence No. 1, evidence No. 2-1 to 3, and evidence No. 3 through 5,

entry of No. 1-3-3, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Summary of the party's assertion

(1) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

The plaintiff asserts that Article 17 (2) 4 of the Value-Added Tax Act, Article 60 (6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, which the defendant asserts as the basis law that the input tax amount is not deducted, does not apply to the plaintiff who is merely a supplier of services, etc., by the provisions applicable to the ○○○ City, which is the landowner. The land in this case is merely a land leased from ○○ City, and thus the value of the land is substantially increased due to the construction of golf courses. Thus, the above provision cannot be applied to

(2) Summary of the defendant's assertion

In regard to this, the Defendant asserts that the land shall be treated as tax-free regardless of its use and ownership, and the capital expenditure for the land forming part of the land shall also be treated as tax-free. Thus, the Defendant asserts that even if the Plaintiff leased and used the instant land owned by ○○○ City, and subsequently did not own the instant land, the construction cost for the instant golf course cannot be deducted as tax-related input tax regardless of its ownership, regardless of its ownership.

B. Relevant statutes

/ Value-Added Tax Act

Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount)

(1) The amount of value-added tax payable by an entrepreneur (hereinafter referred to as the "value-added tax amount") shall be the amount computed by deducting the tax amount under the following subparagraphs (hereinafter referred to as the "value-added tax amount") from the tax amount on the goods and services supplied by him (hereinafter referred to as the "sale tax amount"): Provided, That where an input tax amount exceeds the output tax amount, it shall be the refundable tax amount (hereinafter

1. The tax amount on the supply of goods or services used or to be used for his own business;

2. The tax amount for the import of goods used or to be used for his own business; and

(2) The following input taxes shall not be deducted from the output tax amount:

4. The input tax amount related to the business of supplying goods and services exempt from the value-added tax (including the input tax amount related to the purchaser) and the land related input tax amount as prescribed

【Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act

Article 60 (Scope of Purchasing Tax Amount)

(6) The input tax amount related to the land as prescribed by the Presidential Decree in Article 17 (2) 4 of the Act means the input tax amount falling under any of the following subparagraphs, which is the input tax amount related to the capital expenditures for the creation, etc. of land:

1. An input tax amount related to the acquisition and alteration of the form and quality of land, the development of factory sites and housing sites;

2. An input tax amount related to the expenses for acquisition and removal of the removed structures, in a case where a piece of land on which a building is located is acquired, and the building is removed and only used;

3. An input tax amount related to the expenses constituting the acquisition cost of land by actually increasing the value of land.

C. Determination

(1) The value-added tax is a tax imposed on the added value created by each business operator at all stages of production and distribution, and it goes through various stages of production and distribution, such as raw material processing, product production, retail, etc., from the production of raw materials, and product manufacturing, until the goods are supplied to consumers as completed materials. In general, the value-added tax first produced is a goods or service, which is put into the capital goods of the following business operator (an enterprise) and re-infects labor and capital, and a new added value is formed, and the sales price of the product is continuously increased due to the repeated process, and the total value-added tax is accumulated at the final consumption stage. Accordingly, the final consumer bears a tax on the final product price, i.e., the accumulated total value-added tax. Accordingly, the tax base for the final value of the value added at each stage of production and distribution is consistent with the final value of the product, and the value-added tax is imposed on the remaining amount after deducting the purchase price from the sales amount, i.e., the value-added tax. the value-added tax.

(2) As a method of imposing value-added tax, our country adopts the input tax amount by deducting the input tax amount from the output tax amount. Article 17(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that the input tax amount to be deducted is the input tax amount to be used for its own business, (1) the tax amount to be used for its own business and the tax amount to be used for its own business. Article 17(2) of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that the input tax amount to be deducted from the output tax amount is the input tax amount, (2) the input tax amount to be listed as the input tax amount to be deducted from the output tax amount. (3) The input tax amount to be used for the acquisition tax amount to be used for its own business is the input tax amount to be deducted from the input tax amount. (3) The input tax amount to be used for the acquisition and removal of the land related to the acquisition tax amount to be used for its own business, and (2) the input tax amount to be used for the acquisition and removal of the land related to the acquisition tax amount to be used for its own land.

(3) The legislative intent of the instant case, namely, the input tax amount related to the capital expenditure of the land at issue, is not deducted from the output tax amount. The land is the goods exempt from the value-added tax pursuant to Article 12(1)12 of the Value-Added Tax Act. The capital expenditure for the creation, etc. of the land is to be included in the cost for acquisition of the land under tax accounting, which was included in the cost for acquisition of the land at the time of the transfer of the relevant land, and is recovered by the method included in the acquisition value in calculating the gains from the transfer of the relevant land. As such, the input tax amount related to

(4) If so, the provision on the land-related input tax amount not deducted as the input tax amount is applicable only to the owner of the pertinent land who gains gains from the transfer of the relevant land. Thus, even if the supply of certain goods or services used for one’s own business increases the real value of another’s land, it cannot be said that a person who is not the owner of the relevant land increases the value of another’s land, and it shall not be deemed as an input tax

(5) Therefore, since the part of the input tax amount reported by the Plaintiff to the Defendant, which is KRW 15,00,000, KRW 247,830,000, and KRW 1,481,025, which is the first half of February 2003, and KRW 247,830,000, and KRW 1,481,025, which is the second half of February 2004, are deducted as the input tax amount, the disposition of this case which did not deduct it as the input tax amount is unlawful (However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s act of increasing the value of this land by complying with the instant land by providing new services corresponding to the rent amount, separate from the annual rent amount of KRW 3,00,00,00,000, which is agreed between ○○ and the Plaintiff, constitutes a new output tax amount, which constitutes the input tax amount, but is the owner of the instant land, and does not constitute the input tax amount corresponding to the capital expenditure).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.