Review Corporation 2009-0082 (2010.03.03)

Whether a processed tax invoice related to the precious metal wholesale business has been received;

It is difficult to deem that there is no supply of goods subject to value-added tax, because it is received only by issuing a tax invoice without purchase of gold bullion, or because it takes only the appearance of a gold bullion delivered and paid for the purpose of disguised trade in real transactions.

1. The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax and corporate tax as indicated in the attached Form No. 1 on June 1, 2009 against the Plaintiff and the disposition of notification of change in income amount on June 3, 2009 shall be revoked.

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

same as the entry.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff's status

On December 10, 2002, it is a corporation established for the purpose of manufacturing and wholesale and retail business of precious metals.

B. The plaintiff's purchase transaction (hereinafter referred to as "purchase of this case") and reporting

(1) Receipt of a tax invoice (attached Form 1)

(A) Period: January 1, 2004; - June 31, 2007; Ten times in total;

(b) Purchase agency: (State); (b) Large-scale Corporation (hereinafter referred to as a "Small-Scale Corporation")

(c) Trade goods: Gold bullion equivalent to the total value of 559,497,897 won (hereinafter referred to as "gold bullion in this case");

(2) POE ACT 2004 - Each return and payment of value-added tax and corporate tax for each period of January 2007

- the purchase value equivalent to the input tax deduction and supply value in deductible expenses;

C. Correction and notification of the defendant (the disposition in this case hereinafter referred to as the "the disposition in this case")

(1) Grounds for disposition: The Plaintiff received a false tax invoice from the non-party company without real transaction from the data merchant, and the purchase of the instant tax invoice constitutes a processing transaction.

(2) Details of correction

(A) LOB 204 – Non-deduction of the input tax amount of value-added tax for the first period of January 2007 (as shown in the attached Form No. 90,197,150 as of June 1, 2009)

(B) 204 – Imposition of 175,828,470 won in total of corporate tax as shown in the separate sheet on June 1, 2009) in the calculation of losses for the business year 2007

(C) Notice of change in the amount of income ( June 3, 2009)

O Income Reversion: Representative HaB

O Income amount reverted to theO: 615,447,685 won ( = 559,497,897 won x1.1) for processed purchases

(d) Procedures for the previous trial: Dismissal of a request for review on March 8, 2010;

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 3 to 6 evidence, Eul 1 to 12 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

In light of relevant evidence, such as transfer details of purchase price and tax invoices, the purchase of this case is an actual transaction, and the instant tax invoice is not a processing tax invoice. Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition that assumes that the instant tax invoice is a processing tax invoice is unlawful.

(2) The defendant's assertion

In light of the following circumstances, the instant purchase constitutes a series of transaction processes for the purpose of disguised tax evasion transactions without substantial delivery or transfer of goods. Accordingly, the instant tax invoice constitutes a “tax invoice different from the fact” under Article 17(2)1-2 of the Value-Added Tax Act.

O The non-party company played a role as a conduit in relation to the distribution of gold bullion.

O The process of distributing gold bullion by the non-party company includes a bombane company.

O The non-party company is a company that has been accused of the purchase and sale as a processing transaction.

O Financial data related to the payment of purchase price submitted by the Plaintiff seems to have been engaged in financial manipulation in order to disguised the purchase transaction due to normal transaction.

O Although the Plaintiff submitted a specific purchase contract and a discretionary processing contract, it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff actually purchased the present.

O The source of the purchase fund of this case is unclear.

B. Relevant statutes

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

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) Form of an irregular transaction for the purpose of tax evasion in the transaction of gold bullion

(a) Distribution routes of gold bullion in appearance;

? Foreign enterprises ? Imported Enterprises ? Primary (Sedok) Enterprises ? Two (Sedok) Enterprises ? Large-Scale Ambane Enterprises ? Large-Large Distribution Enterprises ? Export Enterprises ? Foreign Enterprises ?

(B) The role of the bomb coal company

O) Purchase of gold bullion distributed under tax exemption at the transfer stage, and sale to the Do Governor as additional tax amount equivalent to 10% of the value-added tax to the Do Governor, the profit shall be withdrawn in cash within the short period, and the State shall not pay the full value-added tax.

The amount equivalent to the value-added tax paid by the Do-based coal company from the Do-based company will be transferred in order by each company at the immediately preceding stage to deduct the input tax amount by using the tax invoice received from the Do-based company.

The portion corresponding to the value-added tax amount paid by the bomb coal company among the refund amount of the value-added tax is the ultimate source of profit by the bomb coal business.

(2) Distribution of the gold bullion of this case

(A) Statement by the representative director of the non-party company at the time of investigation

Since 2005, the timing for payment was changed to pay the price to the purchaser after the receipt of the goods, and all the payment methods was made only by the transaction of the passbook.

In the case of the transaction of the O gold bullion, two copies of the tax invoice, the statement of transaction, and the delivery receipt shall be prepared, respectively, and one copy of each receipt shall be kept, and the delivery receipt was accepted between the purchaser and the confirmation.

O It is not known before or after the trading stage, and the non-party company is not an authorized entity.

(B) As a result of the tax investigation, the purchase transaction of gold bullion between the non-party company and the non-party company was proved to be the normal transaction.

(C) The Seoul Regional Tax Office accused bothCC on the material to the prosecution, but on July 15, 2009, the Seoul Central District Public Prosecutor's Office (Suspension of Witnesses) rendered a non-prosecution disposition (Suspension of Witnesses).

(D) The frequency of transactions with the Plaintiff and the Nonparty Company is two times in 2004, three times in 2005, three times in 2006, and two times in 2007.

(E) The Plaintiff concluded a contract with (State) FFice, (State)Gjuice, and entrusted the processing of malicious products using the present.

(F) Meanwhile, from around 2003, the Plaintiff entered into a specific purchase contract with AA shopping (main) and sold the said products at a malicious store in AAE.

(G) The Plaintiff received sales proceeds from a specific purchase contract from AA shopping around the 20th day of each month, and the amount reaches approximately KRW 100 million per month.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence 1-1 to 3, Gap evidence 2-1 to 5, Gap evidence 6, Gap evidence 7, Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) In full view of the facts acknowledged earlier, and the following circumstances acknowledged as having added the purpose of the entire pleadings, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant’s purchase of this case solely based on the circumstances alleged by the Defendant does not constitute a supply of goods subject to value-added tax, which is a nominal transaction with the appearance of delivery and payment of gold bullion solely for the purpose of merely issuing a tax invoice and disguised the use of a wide-scale coal business.

O The Plaintiff purchased the gold bullion of this case from the non-party company, received it on the day, and paid the price, and received each tax invoice for the purchase of this case.

O The Plaintiff purchased the gold bullion in this case and left the profit through sales activities.

O The instant tax invoice included the formal descriptions, such as trading partners, transaction items, transaction amount, etc., properly.

(2) Sub-committee theory: The disposition of this case on the premise that the tax invoice of this case received through the purchase transaction of this case constitutes a "tax invoice different from the actual tax invoice prepared differently from the actual one is unlawful."

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.