Cho Jae-2016-west-230 ( December 22, 2016)

The plaintiff is not allowed to engage in a non-taxable business called a missionary business or receive support in return for provision of services, since it was not concluded with a service contract.

The Plaintiff cannot be deemed to run a separate non-taxable business called a missionary business or to have received the key support payment in return for a duty-free business, on the grounds that the Plaintiff did not conclude a service contract, and thus, cannot apply the method of calculating the common purchase tax

Article 61 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act

2017Guhap58946 Demanding revocation of the imposition of value-added tax

OOOO

O Head of tax office

November 10, 2017

November 24, 2017

1. The imposition of value-added tax on the first term portion of 201, the second term portion of 2011, the first term portion of 2012, the first term portion of 2012, the second term portion of 2012, the second term portion of 2013, the second term portion of 2013, the second term portion of 200 for 2013, the first term portion of 200 for 2014, the second term portion of 2014, the second term portion of 2014, the second term portion of 2014, and the first term portion of 00 for 2015 shall be revoked.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a business that receives videos from a famous church to provide a CATV broadcasting business operator, etc. with the same videos produced by the program related to the reading or recorded by the famous church, and receives the price therefor, or sells advertising to the advertiser and receives advertising fees.

B. The Plaintiff, the largest shareholder, has received money necessary for the operation of the AA Study (45% of the AAA Study, 45% of the street), related churches, believers, etc. as a support payment. The Plaintiff was paid KRW 00 as a support payment (hereinafter “instant support payment”) from 1st to 1st 2015.

C. The Plaintiff reported the sales of broadcast programs and advertising fees as sales at the time of the first declaration of value-added tax from the first half of 2011 to the first half of 2015, and received a refund of KRW 00 by deducting the input tax amount for purchase, etc. of broadcasting equipment. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff did not separately file a value-added tax return, deeming the instant support payment is not subject to value-added tax

D. On April 4, 2016, the Defendant concurrently operates a duty-free business called missionary business, and the instant support payment is the value of supply for the duty-free business, and thus, the Plaintiff’s input tax amount should be calculated pro rataly in accordance with the provisions on the method of calculating the input tax amount, deducted some input tax amount, and imposed each value-added tax, such as the written order, on the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 3 evidence, Eul 1 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Relevant statutes;

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

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Summary of the defendant's assertion

1) The Plaintiff is concurrently running a duty-free business, which is a missionary business. The Plaintiff is provided on behalf of the Plaintiff with the services (such as the establishment, etc.) to be provided by the AA Diplomatic Association to the believers, etc. in return for the provision.

2) The Plaintiff produced and received the instant support payment in return for the production of a broadcast program. As such, the instant support payment may be viewed as a consideration for the production of a broadcast program.

B. Determination

1) According to the Plaintiff’s statements in the evidence Nos. 2 through 6, it is posted on the Plaintiff’s website as follows: “The Plaintiff will put the church and the world in his uniform,” and the video of the AA church (the special wall assembly in September, the special wall assembly in March, the special wall assembly in March, etc.) is posted; the AA church and its head own 90% of the Plaintiff’s shares; the Plaintiff’s advertising sales, etc. are approximately KRW 00,00,000,000, and the support payment in this case is approximately KRW 00,00.

2) However, considering the facts acknowledged earlier and the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 6, and 7 as a whole and the following facts and circumstances, it is insufficient to view that the plaintiff concurrently runs a duty-free business called a missionary business, or that the support payment in this case is a price for the plaintiff to provide services to AAA., etc. In short, since the support payment in this case cannot be deemed a consideration for the duty-free business or a consideration for the provision of services, the instant disposition based on such premise is unlawful.

① The Plaintiff is a program provider that operates a business using a specific channel by concluding a contract for exclusive use with a terrestrial broadcasting business entity, CATV broadcasting business entity, or satellite broadcasting business entity for the whole or a part of a specific channel (Article 2 subparag. 2(d) and 3(d) of the Broadcasting Act). The Plaintiff shall supply a program to a CATV broadcasting business entity, receive the price for the program, or provide the advertiser with an advertisement in the process,

② The Plaintiff mainly provides programs related to the reading, but also provides programs, such as cultural programs and news. The programs supplied by the Plaintiff include not only AAcademies, but also a number of prestigious church broadcasts.

③ On the other hand, the Plaintiff did not enter into any agreement with AAA Diplomatic Association and the head of the Gu, while receiving the price for the program provided from the CATV broadcasting business operator under a content provision agreement.

④ Considering that the Plaintiff is a program provider that mainly supplies the program related to the reading, it is highly probable to view that the Plaintiff’s supply of video images taken by the Plaintiff to a CATV broadcasting business entity, which led to the assembly of the AA church or taken by the AA church, as its own business.

⑤ There is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff produced programs corresponding to the support payments paid by the Plaintiff AA church, in addition to those that had been born while taking a special wall meeting in March and September of the AA church.

4. Conclusion

The claim of this case is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.