Seocho 2014west 3312 ( November 10, 2014)

If sales are calculated by estimation by using the unit sales price, it is legitimate.

The disposition determined by estimation of sales amount by purchasing the branch office from the head office to the head of the team to the head of the team and deeming that the consumer was sold to the consumer is legitimate.

2015 Gohap80. Revocation of disposition imposing value-added tax

KimA

Head of Guro Tax Office

September 18, 2015

October 23, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The imposition of each value-added tax of KRW 4,014,180 for the first term of 2009, KRW 1,240,440 for the second term of 209, KRW 4,377,820 for the second term of 2010, KRW 4,657,370 for the second term of 2010, KRW 2,457,330 for the first term of 2011, and KRW 4,116,190 for the second term of 20,81, and KRW 30 for the second term of 20,81, and KRW 30 for the second term of 201.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff was in the position of the head of the branch office from O Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “O”) and was engaged in the business of purchasing and selling the body supplement clothes (hereinafter “goods”) from OO under the trade name, i.e., “S. ShaO” from April 14, 2008.

B. The Defendant: (a) deemed that all the remainder of the goods purchased from O, excluding the end inventory, were sold by the team leader; (b) deemed that the goods sold to the team leader were omitted from the sale price of KRW 143,372,735; and (c) on January 15, 2014, the Plaintiff received a notice of dismissal on the sum of KRW 143,014,180 for the first term portion in 2009, KRW 1,240,440 for the second term in 209, KRW 4,377,820 for the first term portion in 2010, KRW 4,657,370 for the second term in 2010, KRW 2,457,330 for the second term in 2011, KRW 4,16, value-added tax for the second term in 2011, KRW 190 for the second term portion in value-added tax, KRW 313081.4.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. As to the purchaser of the product

1) The plaintiff's assertion

The position of the head of the OO and the Cod (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the head of the team") shall not be below the head of the branch, but be an independent business operator equal to the head of the branch. However, since the head of the team prevents the purchase of goods from the O for the head of the team, the head of the team was engaged in a transaction by the method of purchasing goods and paying a certain amount of fees to the head of the branch under the name of the head of the branch. For the goods purchased and sold by the head of the team, the head of the branch shall not be deemed to have been purchased and sold by the head of the branch, and the value-added tax shall not be imposed on the goods purchased and sold by the head of the branch, and since the above fees are paid by the plaintiff in accordance with the sales performance as a multi-level marketing salesperson, the service concerned constitutes a subject of value-added tax exemption, and thus

In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the head of the team belonging to the Plaintiff purchased the goods from the Plaintiff, not theO, in light of the aforementioned evidence and the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, 6, 8, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 6, and the overall purport of the pleadings. The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 5, 9, and 12 are insufficient to reverse them.

① The basic operational direction of the project pursued by the OO is to increase the number of the heads of the branches, increase the number of the heads of the teams belonging thereto, and promote the sale of goods by increasing the number of the heads of the branches. In order to achieve this, the method of granting direct incentives to the results obtained from the heads of the branches, etc. is not chosen as the main method of paying incentives to the heads of the branches, but the head of the group is entitled to directly purchase goods from the O only when he/she purchases a certain quantity of goods, and the head of the group concerned adopts the method of allowing the heads of the branches to obtain the profits equivalent to the difference between the heads of the branches and the heads of

② The above distribution structure means that the head of the team is neither an independent business operator nor a business operator is prohibited from being registered; Provided, That it is only the fact that the head of the team is unable to purchase goods directly from theO. As such, it is not a business operator who purchased goods from the head of the branch office and sold goods to consumers.

③ It seems that the legal relationship related to the sales of the pertinent goods related to the OO is terminated by receiving an amount equivalent to the price of the branch office from the head of the branch office, and there is a balance between the head of the branch office and the head of the team. ④ The determination of the "head of the group of the goods" refers to the purchase price at which the head of the team purchases the goods. It is not meaningful that the head of the group only sells the goods to the head of the branch office, but the head of the group does not directly sell the goods to the head of the group. Therefore, it seems that the head of the group applies to the price at which the head of the group purchases the goods from the head of the branch office. If the head of the group directly purchases the goods from the head of the group as the head of the group, as alleged by the Plaintiff, the head of the group uses the term "the head of the group" to the effect that the head of the group is paid the fees.

⑤ The Plaintiff reported and paid the value-added tax by deducting the input tax amount from all the goods purchased by the team leader related to the team leader.

6. Examining the description of product purchase list (Evidence A) 8, it is recognized that theO entered the name of the branch office in the name of its member, and the name of the head of the branch office or the team leader in the name of its member while managing the details of the order. However, the above management content appears to include the team leader who purchased goods from the head of the branch office in a certain quantity or more in the position of the branch office as the branch office manager. Thus, it is difficult to view that theO sold the goods to the head of the team directly.

7) Of the matters stipulated in the application for registration of the Cineter and the contract (Evidence A No. 11), the provision that “the company is obligated to report the fact that the sales occurred between the seller and the company as a tax manager at a related agency” includes the provision that “the company is obligated to report the fact that it is a tax manager at a related agency.” However, it is a general within the meaning that the head of the team has an OO, and it is difficult to see that the head of the team has a substantial meaning in the distribution structure that makes it impossible for the head of the team to purchase the goods from theO, and it cannot be inferred that the head of the team purchases the goods directly from

① In the case related to the examination request (Evidence A 12) cited by the Plaintiff, the tax authority is arguing to the effect that the applicant for examination sells the goods to the team leader or the codivist, as the sales of the applicant for examination who is the head of the branch are calculated on the basis of the consumer.

3) Even if the team leader purchases goods directly from theO and the Plaintiff received fees from the team leader, in light of the following circumstances that can be seen in addition to the overall purport of the arguments as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s above fees constitute sales-related sales-related sales-related sales-related sales-related sales-related sales-related sales-related sales-related sales-related sales-related sales-related sales-related sales-related sales-related sales-related sales-related sales-related sales-related sales-related sales-related sales-related sales-related sales-related sales-related sales-related sales-related sales-related sales-related sales-related sales-related sales-related sales-related sales-related sales-related sales-related sales-related sales-related sales-related sales-related sales-related sales-related sales-related sales-related sales-related sales-related sales-related sales-related sales-related sales-related sales-related sales-related sales-related sales-related sales-related sales-related sales-related sales-related sales-related sales-related sales-related sales-related sales-related sales-related sales-related sales-related sales-related sales-related sales-related sales-related sales-related sales-related sales-related sales-related sales-related.

4) We cannot accept this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion.

B. As to guaranteeing the right of defense

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant’s failure to comply with the Plaintiff’s request for disclosure of information on taxation data, etc. constitutes an infringement of the Plaintiff’s right to defense against taxation data, etc. However, there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff filed a request against the Defendant for disclosure of information on taxation data, etc., and even if there was a fact that the Plaintiff, the representative of the head of the headquarters of the headquarters including the Plaintiff, and the head of the headquarters, were rejected after having filed a request for disclosure of information with the tax authority, such circumstance alone cannot be deemed to constitute an unlawful disposition of this case, which is not directly related to the said taxation subject to taxation.

C. As to the estimated decision

Although the Plaintiff asserts that the determination of estimation, which was made by the Plaintiff upon the Defendant’s estimation decision, was unlawful, the Plaintiff’s submission of materials that could compute the sales amount, or the Defendant had no such materials that could be deemed to have secured, cannot be deemed unlawful on the ground that the sales amount was determined by calculating the sales amount in the instant case.

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