Whether a person subject to written investigation is legitimate

In a case where it is confirmed that a return or other document submitted by a person subject to a decision on written investigation in the course of another taxpayer's tax investigation is clearly unfair, it may be corrected by the on-site investigation or

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

Busan District Court Decision 98Gu5576 delivered on September 15, 1999

1. The part of the judgment below against the defendant shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.2.3. The plaintiff's appeal shall be dismissed.

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties:

가. ㅇㅇ시 ㅇㅇ구 ㅇㅇ동 ㅇㅇ에서 'ㅇㅇ비철'이라는 상호로 폐알루미늄을 매입하여 자동차부품 제조업체 등에 판매하는 원고는, ① 별지 1. 부가가치세 내역 중 각 신고세액란 기재와 같이 1993년 1, 2기 및 1994년 1, 2기 부가가치세 확정신고를 하고, 그 부가가치세액을 납부하였고, ② 별지 2. 종합소득세 내역 중 각 신고세액란 기재와 같이 1993년 및 1994년 귀속 종합소득세 과세표준과 세액을 원고의 장부와 증빙서류에 의하여 계산한 다음, 세무사의 조정계산서를 첨부하여 1993년 및 1994년 귀속 종합소득세 확정신고를 하고, 그 종합소득세액을 납부하였다.

나. 원고는 위 가.①,②항 판시 부가가치세 및 종합소득세를 신고함에 있어서, 그가 ㅇㅇ시 ㅇㅇ동 ㅇㅇ 소재 주식회사 ㅇㅇ산업(이하 "ㅇㅇ산업"이라 한다)으로부터 1993년 1기에 금76,380,150원, 그 2기에 금94,242,800원, 1994년 1기에 금84,852,600원, 그 2기에 금9,808,400원 등 합계 금265,283,950원 상당의 폐알루미늄을 매입하여 그 세금계산서 46장(갑7호증의 1 내지 46, 이하 "이 사건 세금계산서"라고 한다)을 발급받았다고 하여, 그 매입대금 265,283,950원을 종합소득세의 필요경비로 계상하는 한편, 그 부가가치세 금26,528,360원을 매입세액으로 신고하였고, 그 증빙자료로 이 사건 세금계산서를 제출하였다.

C. Regarding the final return of global income tax as indicated in the Plaintiff’s above A. (2), the Defendant determined the tax base and tax amount according to the Plaintiff’s return through a written examination on the grounds that the Plaintiff falls under the criteria for written examination determination.

라. ㅇㅇ세무서장은 ㅇㅇ산업에 대한 세무조사를 하는 과정에서, ㅇㅇ산업이 원고에게 1993년부터 1994년까지 사이에 알루미늄을 실제로는 판매하지 않은 채 이 사건 세금계산서 46장을 포함한 허위의 세금계산서 52장 합계 금277,411,830원 상당을 발급하였음이 밝혀졌다고 하여, 1996. 10. 16. 이를 피고에게 통보하였다.

E. Accordingly, based on the above notification data, the Defendant imposed the value-added tax amount on ① the Plaintiff’s input tax amount on the false tax invoice as stated in the above paragraph (d) of Article 17(1)1 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4808 of Dec. 22, 1994) but did not deduct it from the output tax amount. On July 1, 1997, the Defendant imposed the value-added tax amount on January 1, 1993 and 1, 1994 as stated in the correction disposition column of value-added tax on July 1, 1997; ② through the on-site investigation under Article 127 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4803 of Dec. 22, 1994; hereinafter referred to as the “the Act”), and imposed the global income tax on July 19, 198.

F. After that, the tax invoice of this case in Chapter 52 of the tax invoice of this case, excluding Chapter 46 of the tax invoice of this case, was issued by another company identical to the plaintiff, and the defendant revised the above e.i., value-added tax and the global income tax as stated in the tax invoice of this case on January 12, 199 as stated in the separate correction disposition column of attached Table 1.2 of this case as of January 12, 199 (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition imposing value-added tax and the global income tax of this case").

2. Whether the disposition of imposition of value-added tax and global income tax in this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

원고는, (1) 그가 이 사건 세금계산서에 기재된 대로 실제 ㅇㅇ산업에서 현금결제방식으로 폐알루미늄을 구입하였음에도, 피고가 이 사건 세금계산서를 가공 거래에 대한 허위의 세금계산서라고 단정하여, 그 대금을 종합소득세의 필요경비에서 제외하고, 그 부가가치세액 즉 매입세액을 매출세액에서 공제하지 아니하였으니, 이 사건 종합소득세 및 부가가치세 부과처분은 위법하고, (2) 원고의 경우 법 제119조 소정의 서면조사결정대상자에 해당하는데도 불구하고, 피고가 아무런 법적 근거 없이 실지조사결정을 통하여 원고의 1993년 및 1994년도 종합소득세 과세표준과 세액을 경정하였으니, 이 사건 종합소득세 부과처분은 위법하다고 주장한다.

B. Determination

(1) Determination as to the assertion in the above A. (1)

갑7호증의 1 내지 46, 을3호증의 1 내지 4, 을4호증의 1 내지 4의 각 기재에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 이 사건 세금계산서는 실제 거래 없이 발급된 허위의 계산서인 사실을 인정할 수 있고, 이에 반하는 갑15호증의 1, 갑16호증, 을11호증의 각 기재와 원심증인 김ㅇㅇ, 당심증인 황ㅇㅇ의 각 증언은 믿을 수 없으며, 달리 반증이 없으므로, 원고의 위 가.(1)항 판시 주장은 이유가 없다.

(2) Determination as to the assertion in the above A. (2)

(A) Relevant statutes

1) Article 119 (1) of the Act provides, “Where an entrepreneur who is requested to make a correction under paragraph (2) fails to submit a corrected document or has any error in the return or other documents submitted in writing, and the tax base and tax amount may not be determined in writing, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1), in cases where the entrepreneur makes a report on the tax base and tax amount based on books and documentary evidence kept and recorded in the final tax base, and a certified tax accountant (including a certified public accountant who is a certified tax accountant registered under Article 6 of the Certified Tax Accountant Act) makes a written statement with an adjusted statement confirmed that the entries therein are justifiable, falls under the standards as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, the government may request that such correction be made in writing under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree,” and Article 118 (2) of the Act provides, “Where the entrepreneur requested to make a correction under paragraph (2) fails to submit the corrected document or where there is any obvious reason that the tax base and tax amount can not be determined in writing by the corrected document, or where prescribed by the Presidential Decree, it refers to Article 16(3) of the former Enforcement Decree.”

2) Meanwhile, Article 127 of the Act provides that "where an entrepreneur, who has received a written investigation decision pursuant to Article 119 (1) of the Act, is unable to determine the tax base and amount of tax pursuant to Articles 117 through 120, or has found any omission or error after such decision, the government shall immediately investigate the tax base and amount of tax, and determine or correct them," and Article 182-2 of the Enforcement Decree provides that "where the entrepreneur, who has received the written investigation decision pursuant to Article 119 (1) of the Act, falls under any of the following subparagraphs, he may correct the tax base and amount of tax pursuant to Article 127 of the Act," and subparagraph 1 provides that "where he falls under any of the subparagraphs of Article 169 (1)" and subparagraph 2 provides that "where

(B) The purpose of the written investigation decision system and the case where the on-site investigation decision can be made

1) Article 119(1) of the Act provides that only a person liable to pay income tax, such as a person who can trust the amount of revenue reported or whose total amount of revenue can be easily calculated, in cases where he/she files a final return of the tax base with an adjusted statement prepared by a tax accountant, etc. along with an adjusted statement, the tax base and the amount of tax shall be determined in writing. Inasmuch as a tax accountant, etc. trusted in the person subject to written investigation and the tax accountant, etc. to determine the tax base and the amount of tax on an on-site investigation to be government by having a tax accountant prepare and submit an adjusted statement verifying that the entries in the final return of the tax base and the amount of income are correct, and thus, in order to enhance the efficiency of tax administration and promote the convenience of taxpayers, he/she has significance. Therefore, it is evident that the adjusted statement was prepared at all false or processed without any basis, or that the amount of tax was reported, but it is objectively evident that the tax base and the amount of tax were found to have been found to have been found to have been omitted or error only by the reported on the tax base and amount of tax base report.

In addition, Article 119(3) of the Act and Article 168-2(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act stipulate the reasons why the decision was not made in writing, and Article 182-2(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act stipulates the reasons for the decision of correction of the person who made a written investigation. However, as seen above, it is based on the premise that it is unreasonable to determine the tax base and the tax amount solely on the basis of the tax base and the written investigation, such as where it is evident that the adjusted account was completely prepared by false and processed without any ground such as documentary evidence, or where it is evident that the revenue was entirely omitted or omitted from the beginning without being included in the reported contents, or where the reported amount was objectively evident that

2) However, as amended on December 8, 1992, Article 119(2) and (3) of the Act provides that, in making a written review decision different from the previous one, not only the report submitted but also a certain case where there are deficiencies or errors in other documents, the decision may not be made by a written review in a specific case. In full view of the provisions of Article 127 of the Act and Article 182-2 of the Enforcement Decree above, even in a case where a person subject to a written review decision under Article 119 of the Act files a final return on the tax base along with an adjusted account statement of a tax accountant, etc., even if the person subject to a written review decision under Article 119 of the Act denies the contents of the report itself and arbitrarily makes a final return on the tax base, not by a on-site investigation, etc., but by the circumstances revealed in the course of a tax investigation, etc. with another taxpayer, if it is deemed obvious that the report or other documents submitted by the person subject to a written investigation decision on tax base and tax amount can be determined or corrected by a written survey (see Supreme Court Decision 97Nu27Nu.

(C) Determination

(B) We examine the legality of the disposition imposing global income tax of this case in accordance with the legal principles as seen above (B).

위 1.항 및 (1)항 판시와 같이, 원고가 1993년 및 1994년 귀속 종합소득세 확정신고를 함에 있어, 이 사건 세금계산서 금액 상당을 필요경비로 계상하여 그 과세표준과 세액을 신고하면서 세무사가 작성한 조정계산서를 첨부하였고, 피고는 원고가 서면조사결정기준에 해당된다 하여 서면심리에 의하여 과세표준과 세액을 결정하였으나, 그 후 ㅇㅇ세무서장의 ㅇㅇ산업에 대한 세무조사 과정에서, 원고가 ㅇㅇ산업으로부터 가공거래에 대한 허위의 이 사건 세금계산서를 발급받아 이를 기초로 가공의 필요경비를 계상하여 신고하였음이 밝혀짐에 따라, 이러한 내용을 통고받은 피고가 실지조사결정을 통하여 원고의 1993년 및 1994년 귀속 종합소득세 과세표준 및 세액을 경정하였는바, 사정이 이러하다면, 당초에 원고가 종합소득세 과세표준확정신고를 함에 있어서 제출한 신고서 및 조정계산서에 첨부된 부속서류 중 이 사건 세금계산서에 해당하는 필요경비 부문에 관한 기재에 허위 또는 미비가 있었음이 형식적으로 보더라도 쉽게 알 수 있어, 서면조사만으로 결정하도록 하는 것이 명백히 부당하다고 인정되는 경우에 해당하므로, 실지조사결정을 할 사유가 있다고 보아야 할 것이다.

Therefore, the disposition of imposition of global income tax in this case, which corrected the tax base and tax amount of global income tax in 1993 and 1994 by the Defendant’s on-site investigation decision, is legitimate, and therefore, the Plaintiff’s above claim in Section A(2) is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court below partially accepted the plaintiff's claim as a result of partial acceptance of the plaintiff's claim, it is accepted by the defendant's appeal. The part of the judgment below against the defendant is revoked and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to that part is dismissed. Since the remaining part of the judgment below is legitimate, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed