Whether the purchase tax invoice amount is a real transaction

Even if the entry of the account book does not appear in the account book, it is difficult to conclude that there was no transaction based on the tax invoice for this reason, because the Plaintiff failed to enter the account book itself in bad faith.

Article 27 (Necessary Expenses)

Article 55 (Calculation of Necessary Expenses for Real Estate Rental Income, etc.)

1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of global income tax amounting to KRW 7,991,70 against the Plaintiff on January 28, 2005 shall be revoked.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Circumstances and basic facts of taxation;

A. The Plaintiff is engaged in the business of manufacturing synthetic resin with the trade name of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and the Plaintiff received each purchase tax invoice of KRW 4,500,000 on February 28, 199, which includes the supply value of KRW 6,50,000, the supply value of KRW 3,500,000, the supply value of KRW 3,500,000 on March 31, 199, the supply value of KRW 3,50,000, and the supply value of KRW 4,500,000 on July 30, 199, and filed a value-added tax return by deducting the relevant input tax amount from the supply value of KRW 5,50,000 on October 30, 199 (hereinafter referred to as the “tax invoice”). The amount

B. Since August 194, 1994, Park○-○ was engaged in an internal wholesale business. Around May 2004, on the ground that he received a purchase tax invoice and received a deduction of the value-added tax, even though he did not engage in a real transaction, ○○ was investigated by the ○○ Tax Office around May 2004. At the time, ○○○ was not issued a purchase tax invoice because she purchased an internal fee from a defaulted company, etc., and instead received a purchase tax invoice by paying 7% fee to the person who is the head of Y-ho, and the purchase tax invoice was received from him, and the transaction he sold was a

C. The head of ○○ Tax Office notified the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the tax base to the Plaintiff that ○○ had issued the tax invoice of KRW 20,000,000 in total without a real transaction. The head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the Plaintiff notified the head of the tax office of the tax base of the tax base to correct the value-added tax by deducting the relevant input tax amount from the said taxation data,

(d) salt rates and the value added rate by type of business in 1999 for the 199- industry (Sales =(Purchase)/Sales) is 19.18%, and the first value added rate in 199 for 199 for 199 for Park ○,00, shall be 97.51%, and 51.97% for the second value added rate in 199;

E. The Plaintiff prepared the account books by the year 1998, and did not prepare the account books in 1999, and thereby did not indicate the Plaintiff’s account books related to the instant tax invoice.

F. On January 28, 2005, the Defendant rendered the instant taxation disposition imposing a increased tax of KRW 7,991,700 (tax amount of KRW 4,000,000 + additional tax of KRW 3,91,700) on the Plaintiff by adding KRW 20,00,000 to necessary expenses based on the foregoing taxation data.

Facts without any dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2-4, Eul evidence 5-1 through 1-2, Eul evidence 3-1, 2-4, Eul evidence 3-1, 4-7, Eul evidence 7, testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the taxation disposition is legitimate

A. The parties' assertion

(1) Plaintiff

The Plaintiff’s tax disposition, which was actually supplied by Park○-○ upon receiving the instant tax invoice, deemed as a processing transaction even though it was based on the receipt of the global income tax return, was unlawful.

(2) Defendant

Since 1,705,210,00 won is merely 19,742,00 won of the normal purchase amount from 1999 to 1,201, the sales tax invoice issued by Park ○○○ for the same period is higher than the added-value ratio by the type of business in the same type of business, and since 26, 1998, 100 won is too higher than the added-value ratio by the value-added ratio by the Park○○○, and 200 had no record of paying the value-added tax, etc. after October 26, 1998, 200 is considered as the so-called so-called "data" where the false sales tax invoice was issued by Park○○, and there was no criminal charge, and there was no specification of transactions between Park○○ and the Plaintiff’s account book. Therefore, the instant taxation disposition is legitimate.

B. Relevant statutes

○ Article 27 of the Income Tax Act (Calculation of Necessary Expenses)

(1) In calculating real estate rental income, business income, temporary property income, other income, or forestry income, the necessary expenses to be included shall be the sum of expenses corresponding to the total amount of income in the current year and generally accepted.

○ Article 80 of the Income Tax Act (Determination and Correction)

(2) If a person who has made a final return on the tax base pursuant to Articles 70 through 72 or 74, falls under any of the following subparagraphs, the superintendent of the district tax office or the director of the regional tax office having jurisdiction over the

1. Where an omission or error exists in the contents of return;

○ Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17032 of Dec. 29, 2000)

Article 55 (Calculation of Necessary Expenses for Real Estate Rental Income, etc.)

(1) Necessary expenses corresponding to the total amount of income from real estate rental and business income in each year shall be as follows:

1. Purchase price (excluding a purchase reduction or a purchase discount) of the raw materials for the commodities or products sold and the incidental expenses thereto. In this case, the original purchase price (excluding a purchase reduction or a purchase discount) and incidental expenses thereto shall be applicable, if the relevant business operator has consumed such ones for a business use, as have been purchased for other purposes;

C. Determination

(1) In a lawsuit seeking revocation of taxation, the burden of proving the facts of taxation is, in principle, at the tax authority. A tax invoice on some of the expenses reported by the taxpayer is proved to be prepared without real transactions by the defendant, who is the tax authority, to the extent that it is reasonable for the taxpayer to dispute whether it is an actual cost and that the other party to the tax payment is false. However, the burden of proving that such expenses have been actually paid should be converted to the burden of proving that it has been actually paid, and it is easy for the taxpayer to present all the materials such as the books and evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu8192, Sept. 26, 1997).

(2) As to whether the instant tax invoice was prepared without a real transaction, it is insufficient to recognize it by itself, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, according to the entry of No. 5 and the witness’s testimony, Park ○○○ was issued a tax invoice from the data in his purchase transaction. However, it can be recognized that the Plaintiff asserted that the sales transaction with the Plaintiff was made and issued the sales tax invoice by covering the amount of about 10 to 30% of the actual transaction amount, while the sales transaction with the Plaintiff was in real transaction or the real transaction was in real transaction. Although Park○○ purchased the goods without a tax invoice from the defaulted company, etc., even if there are many cases where the sales amount was excessive compared to the normal purchase amount, or the value added ratio of Park○○○’s value added business was higher than the same type of business, such circumstance alone does not constitute a false transaction without a real transaction based on the instant tax invoice.

In addition, even if the Plaintiff’s account book does not indicate any entry on the instant transaction, it is difficult to conclude that there was no transaction based on the instant tax invoice for this reason, and the reason that Park○ did not pay value-added tax does not constitute grounds for recognizing that there was no transaction based on the instant tax invoice.

(3) Therefore, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have found that the instant tax invoice was falsely prepared without any real transaction. Thus, the instant tax disposition was unlawful on the premise that the Plaintiff received the instant tax invoice, which was made with no false real transaction from Gab○○ without any real transaction. The Plaintiff’s assertion pointing this out is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.