early 2015west0897

Tax invoices issued by another corporation after being supplied with goods shall constitute a false tax invoice.

Tax invoices issued by a separate corporation which is supplied with goods and whose representative is different from the location of the goods are clearly identified as false or false.

Articles 16 and 17 of the former Value-Added Tax Act;

2015Guhap6394 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

EAA

○ Head of tax office

December 3, 2015

January 14, 2016

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax against the Plaintiff on December 1, 2014, of KRW 3,49,650 for the first term in 2010, KRW 6,116,750 for the second term in 2010, KRW 4,189,120 for the second term in 201, KRW 4,69,120 for the second term in 2011, KRW 4,698,310 for the second term in 2011, KRW 1,254,240 for the first term in 2012, KRW 2,357,50 for the second term in 2012 (including penalty tax) shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff operated franchise restaurant 'BBB ○○○○○-dong ○○○○○○○○○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as "the restaurant in this case") and received orders for alcoholic beverages from 1 January to 2012 from 2010 to DaDD Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "DDD") in the taxable period of the value-added tax, and received them from DoD (hereinafter referred to as "DD") in the name of the liquor supplier, and received a purchase tax invoice of KRW 119,424,00 (hereinafter referred to as "the tax invoice in this case"), upon filing a value-added tax return, the input tax amount under the tax invoice in this case was deducted from the output tax amount.

B. The director of ○○○ Regional Tax Office conducted a follow-up survey on the distribution process of DNA with respect to such DNA from October 14, 2013 to November 30, 2013, on the ground that DNA issued processed tax invoices without supplying alcoholic beverages, and revoked the punishment and disposition in violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, and then notified the Defendant of such fact as taxation data.

C. On December 1, 2014, the Defendant, upon receipt of the above notice, deducted input tax amount on the value of the pertinent public fund on the ground that the instant tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice. On December 1, 2014, the Defendant issued each disposition of imposition of value-added tax amounting to KRW 3,49,650 for the first period of January 1, 2010, KRW 6,116,750 for the second period of February 2, 2010, KRW 4,189,120 for the first period of January 2, 2011, KRW 4,698,310 for the second period of February 2, 201, KRW 1,254,240 for the first period of January 2, 2012, KRW 2,357,50 for the second period of February 2, 2012 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on January 7, 2015, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal on May 13, 2015, and accordingly, filed the instant lawsuit on June 22, 2015. [The grounds for recognition: the fact that there is no dispute, the entries in Gap’s 1, 2, and Eul’s 1 and 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff issued two kinds of tax invoices in the name of "CC alcoholic beverages" and "DDD" in the name of "CC alcoholic beverages" and "DDDD" on the grounds that the plaintiff asked FF, who is a staff member in charge of supplyingCC alcoholic beverages, about the reasons, and FF is a company in fact that "CC alcoholic beverages and DDDDD are supplied with alcoholic beverages to the same company, and therefore, FF is issued tax invoices in the name of "DDD is not any problem." Nevertheless, the defendant issued the tax invoices in this case on the ground that DD constitutes a false processing data transaction company."

(b) Related statutes;

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

Article 16(1) of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11608, Jan. 1, 2013; hereinafter referred to as the "Value-Added Tax Act") provides that where an entrepreneur registered as a taxpayer supplies goods or services, a tax invoice stating the registration number, name or title of the entrepreneur who provides goods at the time prescribed in Article 9 of the Value-Added Tax Act, and the registration number, etc. of the supplier shall be issued to the person who receives the goods or services, as prescribed by Presidential Decree. Article 17(2)2 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that the input tax amount shall not be deducted from the output tax amount if all or part of the requisite entry items under Article 16(1)1 through 4 of the Value-Added Tax Act are not timely or differently stated in the tax invoice issued, the person to whom the goods or services belong is not aware of the fact that the entrepreneur did not actually bear the burden of proof in light of the purport of Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes.

In light of the above legal principles, in addition to Gap's evidence 3 and Eul's evidence 3 on the grounds of the above disposition and the grounds of its recognition, sinceCC alcoholic beverages and DDD can be recognized as a separate legal entity whose location and representative are different, the plaintiff himself/herself recognizes that the plaintiff was supplied alcoholic beverages fromCC other than DD, it is clear that the tax invoice of this case constitutes a false tax invoice different from the false facts.

Furthermore, in the lawsuit of this case, the plaintiff argued that "CC alcoholic beverages were issued two kinds of tax invoices in the name ofCC alcoholic beverages and DDDD in supplying alcoholic beverages, and that since the plaintiff asked for tobacco oil, both employees in charge of supplying alcoholic beverages are the same company and they were issued a tax invoice in the name of DDD because they did not have any problem." Thus, even according to the plaintiff's assertion itself, the plaintiff was issued the tax invoice in the name of DD, knowing that the supplier of alcoholic beverages was CC alcoholic beverages. Thus, it is not difficult to view that "FF was issued the tax invoice in the name of "if the plaintiff was unaware of the fact that the other party is not the actual supplier of goods or services" in the name of "FF was present as a witness," and " principal was issued the tax invoice in the name of DD in the name of the head office of CC alcoholic beverages and DDD, and the plaintiff did not cooperate with CC alcoholic beverages and DD, even if the plaintiff did not cooperate with the plaintiff as the plaintiff's company's reliance and DD.

Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be accepted and the instant disposition is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.