Additional 2012-0065 (20 July 20, 201)

Other daily construction expenses in the specification list shall be calculated on income, and additional construction expenses shall be excluded due to lack of evidence.

The other party's daily construction expenses shall be calculated on the basis of the transaction statement, and the additional construction expenses shall be excluded from the revenue amount due to lack of evidence that the additional construction expenses have been made.

2012Guhap31182 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing Value-Added Tax

KimA

Head of Seodaemun Tax Office

January 17, 2014

March 4, 2014

1. On January 1, 2012, the Defendant’s disposition of imposition of the value-added tax No. 2006 against the Plaintiff, which exceeds the OO0 won, shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. 9/10 of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of the value-added tax No. 2006 against the Plaintiff on January 1, 2012 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

"A. The plaintiff is a business operator who has been engaged in the construction, design, waterproof construction business, etc. with the trade name "BScom" from April 22, 2003 to August 31, 201, and "BScom"; "B. The defendant, in the 2006 second value-added tax, the plaintiff supplied typists and hygiene utensils at OO-Gu OO-dong O-dong 788-19 during the 2006 second value-added tax, and received the payment of OOO (including value-added tax; therefore pure commodity proceeds in this case; hereinafter referred to as "the issues amount of this case") from the price of the goods, but failed to report the value-added tax for the pertinent period; on January 1, 2012, the plaintiff was dissatisfied with the above disposition by notifying the plaintiff of the correction and disposition of the 2006 value-added tax OOO (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff's objection in this case").

Facts that there is no dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 11, 12, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff supplied the bestD with tyl and sanitary instruments, and prepared and placed a detailed list of transactions with the aggregate amount of OO on August 17, 2006.

First of all, the amount under the above specification of the transaction is merely that the Plaintiff received money from the Plaintiff on behalf of the Plaintiff by providing services such as the performance of works on a different day by persons such as the former EE, etc., and thus, the said amount cannot be deemed to have been omitted in the sale, including the key amount in this case.

Next, the part of the key issue amount in this case, which exceeds the amount specified in the above transaction statement, is not the price for goods or services provided by the Plaintiff to the least DD in relation to the construction site of the new construction site, but is a separate personal claim amount held by Park F, the husband of the Plaintiff with respect to the least DD. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the sale was omitted including the amount of this case's issue

B. Determination

(1) Of the key issues of the instant case, the part concerning the OOO

According to Gap evidence No. 4, in relation to the new construction site of this case, it is acknowledged that the plaintiff prepared a transaction statement, which is the total supply amount of OOO (excluding value added tax) in the item column with the supplier of the plaintiff as the supplier on August 17, 2006 and with the maximum DD as the receiver, and all kinds of other day construction expenses, stairs-day construction expenses, and belt construction expenses (the total construction expenses) in the item column. In light of the above fact-finding, in particular, the supplier who provided construction services in the transaction statement prepared by the plaintiff himself is written as the plaintiff, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff provided services to the least DO by employing the human body and received the price for such services.

Therefore, there is no error in deeming the said amount as omitted from its sales at the time of the Plaintiff’s declaration of value-added tax.

(2) The part exceeding the OOO of the key amount of the instant case

In full view of the purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 4, 9 and Eul evidence Nos. 3, the following facts are stated as follows: in the margin column of the statement of this transaction as seen earlier + the requirement of OOOOOO won for double-style additional construction works. DD, as the plaintiff and headG could not pay the construction cost, etc. related to the new construction site of this case, stated that the new contract for real estate sales (Evidence No. 9) was entered as TOO(OOOO) in the real estate sales contract (Evidence No. 9) entered as at the time, that DOO was entered as TOO(OOOO). DO was entered as at September 16, 2010, which was entrusted with other construction after undergoing a tax investigation on September 16, 2010 and the transaction amount between the plaintiff (FFO) and the head of the sales contract was completely attached to the plaintiff and the head of the OGG.

However, the aforementioned evidence and the witness EE’s testimony added to the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, that there is no evidence to ascertain whoever the part of the requirement of KOOOO in the margin column of the above trading specification statement + there is no evidence to ascertain whoever was stated, that the aggregate amount of the supply details and the required amount in the transaction specification stated in the detailed statement is OO, and there is no evidence to present the details of additional construction works. However, at the time of undergoing a tax investigation, the materials on the details of the additional construction are not presented at all. The above statement of DD was made in a clear manner as to whether the documents related to global income tax for 2008 by the highest DD’s global income tax return. In light of the above facts alone, the above facts alone are not answers to the actual cause of the occurrence of the money called additional construction expenses, and there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff exceeded the total amount of OOO in addition to the construction stated in the trading specification.

(3) the filing of a lawsuit and the reasonable calculation of tax amount;

Therefore, the sales revenue omitted by the plaintiff at the second time value-added tax return in 2006 shall be the sum of the total amount in the transaction statement (excluding value-added tax), and when calculating the legitimate tax amount based on this, it shall be the OO(the amount less than 10 won according to Article 47(1) of the National Funds Management Act) as follows.

【Calculation Details】

-Tax bases: OOO

- Tax amount payable: OOO

- Reduction and tax credit amount: OOO

- Additional tax amount: OOO

- Pre-calculated OOO(=OOOOA + OOOOO, and the plaintiff paid OOOOO won among these)

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.