Cho High Court Decision 201Du4758 (Ob. 12, 2012)

The initial disposition that did not deduct input tax amount because it failed to meet the requirements for deduction of the constructive purchase tax amount is legitimate.

The issue of deduction of constructive input tax shall not be the same as the requirement for deduction of constructive input tax, even if the taxpayer submits other documents than the documents prescribed in the regulations (i.e., the list of invoices by seller, or credit card sales slips).

Article 17 (3) of the Value-Added Tax Act

Article 62 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act

2012 disposition of revocation of the imposition of value-added tax, 18714

KimA

The director of the tax office

March 19, 2013

April 18, 2013

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

On March 11, 2011, the Defendant revoked each disposition of KRW 000 out of KRW 000 among the value-added tax for the first period of 2008, KRW 000 among the value-added tax for the second period of 2008, KRW 000 among the value-added tax for the second period of 2008, KRW 000 among the value-added tax for the first period of 2009, and KRW 000 among the value-added tax for the first period of 2009, and KRW 000 among the value-added tax for the second period of 2009.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From January 3, 2007, the Plaintiff runs 00 00 O0 00 O0 00 00 O2 20 0 00 00 0 00 0 00 00 00 00 20 00 00 20 0 00 00 00 00 20 00 00 00 00 00 200 00 00 00 00 200 00 00 200 00 00 00 2000 00 200 00 00 00 200 00 00 00 00 00 00 200 00 00 200 00 00 00 02 00 02 10 01 201 201 0

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for trial with the Tax Tribunal on October 7, 201, and was dismissed on March 12, 2012.

[Based on recognition] The identification of Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, and Eul evidence 1, 2, 5, 8 through 12, and 14 (including any number), and the purport of the whole argument

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the plaintiff is confirmed to have purchased the meat directly from livestock farmers as follows, even if he fails to meet the requirements for deduction of the constructive purchase tax amount under Article 17 (3) of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 62 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the relevant purchase amount shall be deducted from the constructive purchase tax amount.

B. Relevant statutes

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

C. Determination

According to the provisions of Article 17 (3) and (4) of the Value-Added Tax Act, and where the supply of goods or services produced by using agricultural, livestock, fishery, or forestry products (hereinafter referred to as "tax-free agricultural products, etc.") that are supplied by an entrepreneur with the exemption of value-added tax is imposed, the entrepreneur may deduct the amount calculated under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree from the input tax amount only if he submits to the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the place of business a document proving the fact that he is supplied with tax-free agricultural products, etc. as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, along with the preliminary and final return of value-added tax, as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. Thus, if he fails to submit a document proving the fact that he is supplied with tax-free agricultural products, etc. as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, he cannot be entitled to the deduction of the constructive purchase tax amount (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Du48491, Nov. 8, 2002).

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.