National High Court Decision 2004J 1903 (Law No. 11, 2004)
The case on which corporate tax was imposed on the basis of the lack of evidence of payment, since the processed tax invoice was received from the data.
Article 19 of the Corporate Tax Act
I dismiss the appeal.
1. Summary of disposition;
The applicant corporation received purchase tax invoices of 85,191,00 won from the OOO (OO) on November 15, 2001 from data merchants, and filed a return on the value-added tax after deducting the input tax amount from the input tax amount, and filed a return on the corporate tax for 2001 business year by allocating it as manufacturing cost.
The disposition agency considered the purchase amount of the tax invoice received by the applicant corporation as the amount of the processed purchase without real transaction, and judged and notified 30,849,140 won of the corporate tax for the business year 2001 to the representative, after disposing of the proceeds of the purchase to the representative in the calculation of the corporate income amount.
The applicant filed the appeal on May 20, 2004 after the filing of the objection on February 10, 2004.
2. Opinion of the requesting corporation and the disposition agency;
A. The claimant corporation's assertion
A claimant corporation is supplied with raw and subsidiary materials by OOOO, the customer of which has been awarded 2.5 billion won for machinery manufacture and construction by OOOO, but can not issue a tax invoice under the internal circumstances of OOOO. It receives a tax invoice issued by (State)OOOO that has been brought by OOO, and (State) the fact that it has withdrawn funds deposited from OOOOOO and paid for cash goods is confirmed by the deposit sheet, so such purchase amount shall be included in the deductible expenses by recognizing it as a disguised purchase.
(b) Opinions of disposition agencies;
Although the claimant firm stated that it purchased raw and subsidiary materials equivalent to the purchase amount of the tax invoice at the time of proving the original taxation data, it would only be argued that it paid them in cash on the site without the details of payment, and there is no presentation of objective evidence, such as financial data related to the payment of the purchase price, and thus it is reasonable to regard the purchase price as the processing purchase price and to dispose of it as non-deductible.
3. Hearing and determination
(a) Points in dispute;
The dispute is based on whether the purchase price of the issue tax invoice can be included in the loss because it is recognized as a disguised purchase other than the processing purchase.
(b) Related statutes;
Article 19 of the Corporate Tax Act (1) Deductible expenses shall be the amount of losses incurred by transactions which reduce the net assets of the corporation except as otherwise provided for in this Act, such as refund of capital or financing and disposal of surplus funds.
(2) The losses under the provisions of paragraph (1) shall be losses or expenses generated or spent in connection with the business of a corporation which are generally accepted as normal or directly related to profit, except as otherwise prescribed by this Act and other Acts and subordinate statutes.
In filing a report on the tax base of corporate tax on income for each business year pursuant to Article 60 or in determining or revising the tax base of corporate tax pursuant to Article 66 or 69 of the Corporate Tax Act, the amount included in gross income shall be disposed of as bonus, dividend, other outflow from the company, internal reserve, etc. according to the person to whom it belongs as prescribed by Presidential Decree.
C. Facts and determination
(1) The agency considers the issue tax invoice received from the applicant corporation as the processed tax invoice received without real transaction, and imposes tax on the representative's non-deductible losses and bonus disposal;
The claimant corporation acknowledges that the issue tax invoice is a tax invoice different from the fact, but it actually claims that the tax invoice should be included in the loss because it is supplied with goods such as raw and subsidiary materials by OOO, so it is not a processing purchase, but a disguised purchase.
(2) According to the taxation data processing statement presented by the agency as psychological data, it has been substantiated that the purchase price (85,191,000 won) of the issue tax invoice received by the agency from (ju)OOOOO was a disguised purchase from OOO(OOOOOOOOO).
In light of the fact that it is confirmed from OOO during the second period of 2001, which is the same taxable period, that there is no evidence related to payment, and the fact that it is confirmed that there is a purchase fact of 31,978,000 won, which is not a disguised transaction, it is confirmed that the corporate tax, etc. has been imposed.
(3) According to the response presented by the disposition agency, it is confirmed that the applicant corporation received 6 cases of purchase tax invoice 33,609,000 won from OOOO in addition to the issue tax invoice, and 5 cases of 31,978,000 won in the second period of 2001, and reported corporate tax, etc. by including them in deductible expenses and deductible expenses.
(4) According to the certificate of OO OO presented as psychological data by the claimant corporation, it is confirmed that EOO issued the sales tax invoice for the real transaction of 85,191,000 won in its name without issuing it under its own name during the first year of 2001, but the transaction date of the issue tax invoice is different from that of the transaction date in the certificate (1,2001).
(5) In addition, according to the applicant corporation's OOOO (OOO or OOOOOOOOOO) it is confirmed that the applicant corporation received a loan of 890 million won for the facility fund of 200,000 won and withdrawn in cash on the same day, and that it received a loan of 200,000 won for the facility fund of 200,000 won and 210,000,000 won for the facility fund of 20,000,000 won, and that it was withdrawn in cash, but it is not confirmed whether the applicant paid the actual purchase price to OO with the withdrawn fund.
(6) On the other hand, it is confirmed that, as a business operator (OOOOOO) who can issue a tax invoice under his name at the time when the claimant corporation is the actual trader, it is not in compliance with the rule of experience to view that it received the tax invoice from others and presented it to the claimant corporation. OOOOOO also issued 33,609,000 won among the first half of 2001, 5 31,978,000 won among the second half of 201 to the claimant corporation;
In addition, it is unreasonable to recognize the issue tax invoice as a disguised purchase in view of the fact that the amount equivalent to 93,710,100 won is paid to EO by withdrawing in cash and paying to EO is inconsistent with the transaction practices related to the payment of consideration.
(7) Therefore, it is deemed that the disposition authority did not err in imposing corporate tax by deeming the purchase price of the key tax invoice as the processing purchase without real transaction.
This case shall be decided as ordered in accordance with the provisions of Articles 81 and 65(1)2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, since it is judged that the petition for appeal is groundless as a result of the review.