early 2011west0412 ( October 27, 2011)
청구인은 백OOO이 실질 대표자라고 주장하나, 김용민과 백영식에 대한 처분청의 문답서, OOO경찰서의 수사 당시 김OOO과 청구인의 진술내용(☞청구인이 실질대표) 등을 종합하면, 청구인을 실지 대표자로 보아 과세한 처분은 잘못이 없음
Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes
The appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of disposition;
A. On October 12, 2010, the disposition agency filed a complaint as data on the data on the first taxable period of the value-added tax in 2005 and 2007 by deeming that the purchase and sales tax invoice of 3,477,500,000 won was received and delivered without any actual transaction. The claimant deemed the applicant as the real representative of the OOO and disposed of the relevant amount as bonus and then disposed of the relevant amount as bonus to the applicant on October 12, 2010, the amount corresponding to 48,19,020, the amount corresponding to the year 2005, the amount corresponding to the year 2006, the amount corresponding to the year 272,934,550, and the amount corresponding to the year 217,627,960, respectively.
B. The claimant appealed and filed an appeal on January 6, 201.
2. Opinions of the claimant and disposition agency;
A. The claimant's assertion
The claimant, as an employee of the OO, is engaged in internal management only under the direction of the OO, which is the business owner, and the actual field work such as purchase and sale of the tax invoice was conducted by OO, and it is necessary to verify whether the actual business owner is the actual business owner, who is the former representative director of the OO, and the OO is confirmed by the confirmation document of the employees at the time as the actual business owner of the OO. Therefore, the claimant's disposition imposing the comprehensive income tax is improper.
(b) Opinions of disposition agencies;
In June 2008, the applicant was designated as the actual representative director of the OO in all the statements made by KimO, the former representative director of the OO, and WhiteO, the former executive director of the OO, at the time of investigation on the data of the OO, and the applicant refused to comply with the applicant's request for attendance related to the investigation on suspected data, and the applicant's written opinion prepared by the head of the OOO police station recognized that the applicant was actually managing and operating the OO from October 2005 to November 2006, the applicant is deemed to be the actual business owner of the OO and imposed the comprehensive income tax.
3. Hearing and determination
A. Key issue
The propriety of the claim claim statement that is not the actual representative of the corporation and imposed the general income tax by deeming it as the actual representative of the corporation as bonus.
(b) Relevant laws;
Article 14 (Real Taxation) (2) The provisions concerning the calculation of tax base in tax-related Acts shall apply according to the substance, notwithstanding the name or form of the income, profit, property, act or transaction.
C. Facts and determination
(1)In light of the report of the completion of an investigation by a person suspected of having been accused of the OO ( June 2008), the report shall be as follows:
(A) On November 23, 2006, 2006, the representative director of the OO changed from OO to HaOO, and on June 18, 2007, HaO was changed from HaO to MaO again.
(B) Of the three representative directors of the OO, the OO died, and the HaOO and KimO present at the presence of OOO and the HaOO was refused to attend, and KimO argued that the name of the representative director was lent upon the request of the claimant who is the actual representative.
(C) A general secretary of the OO and a person in charge of the business were present at the OO, and the actual representative stated that the claimant was issued and received the tax invoice, and the claimant was asked to appear in accordance with that statement.
(D) Examining the details of purchase and sale transaction recovery of OO, 2.54 billion won and sales 93 billion won during the first taxable period of 2005 and 2.53 billion won during the first taxable period of 2007 were investigated as a processing transaction.
(2) In light of the last sentence ( March 24, 2008), KimOO stated that the representative director was accepted at the request of the claimant of Goo-gu, the actual representative of OOO, and that the executive director of OO was in charge of the management of the OOO, and that the OO was working in July 2005 and October 2007, and the applicant was mainly responsible for the issuance and receipt of the tax invoice. The organization was the president (president), the applicant for the president, the person in charge of OO on-site KimO, the person in charge of OO on-site KimO, the person in charge of OO on-site in charge of the facility site, and the actual representative was the representative under his name, and the OOO and HaOOO stated that
(3) In light of the content of the investigation results on the OO and claimant, etc. of the head of the OO police station’s investigation (see, e.g., April 9, 2009), the KimO stated that the claimant, who is a bad credit holder, was issued and received a tax invoice, etc. while accepting and operating the OO by lending the name of the person himself/herself. The claimant appears to have stated that the fact that the OO was actually managed and transferred to the OO during the period from October 2005 to November 2006.
(4) Examining the fact-finding confirmation submitted by the claimant, each of the following is written:
(A) The OOO(2010.9.24) served as an employee of the OO and the substantial death of the company was constituted OO.
(B) The KimOO (OO September 24, 2010) served as a director of the OO, and the actual management of the entity at the time is the OO and the claimant was responsible for the management.
(C) The KimOO (OO. 20 September 20, 2010) had lent its name to OO while working as the representative director in the name of OO, and had been in charge of financial management, issuance of various purchase and sales tax invoices, and execution of management.
(D) Extraordinary(2010.9.27.) worked as an employee of the OO, and the actual company is called OO.
(E) The WhiteO (OO September 27, 2010) confirms that the principal has run the OO from March 2005 to June 11, 2007.
(5) Comprehensively taking account of the above facts, the claimant asserts that OO is the actual business owner of OO, but the disposition agency stated the claimant as the actual representative of OO's OO's OO's OO's OO's OO's OO's OO's OO's OO's O's O's O's O's O's O's O's O's O's O's O's O's O's O's O's O's O's O's O's O's O's O's O's O's O's O's O's O's O's O's O's O's O's O's O's O's O's O
This case shall be decided as ordered in accordance with Articles 81 and 65(1)2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, because the claimant's assertion is groundless as a result of the review.