Daejeon District Court-2017-Gu Partnership-10452 (No. 18, 2018)

Whether the instant tax invoice constitutes a processed tax invoice or a disguised tax invoice

The disposition of this case is legitimate, because it is difficult to view the tax invoice of this case as necessary expenses related to the Plaintiff’s sales commission of the land in light of the statements and confirmation by the relevant persons and the flow of funds

Article 12 of the Corporate Tax Act

Daejeon High Court 2018Nu11232

***

ㅁㅁ세무서장

National Rotations

oly 2019.18

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Corporate tax of 121,716,330 won (the corporate tax for the business year 2012) that the Defendant provided to the Plaintiff on September 13, 2016

103,747,080 won, or 17,969,250 won of corporate tax for business year 2013 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the supplement of the first instance court’s decision as stated below or as stated in paragraph (2). Thus, this Court’s reasoning is cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(1) Each 14th written judgment of the court of first instance shall be subject to "request for examination".

(2) The second and second instances of the judgment of the court of first instance shall add "the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 16008, Dec. 24, 2018)" to "the Corporate Tax Act."

2. Supplement of judgment

A. The tax invoice is issued without supply of goods or services, and the plaintiff and its representative zz is proved to have been the counter-party to the payment of expenses claimed by the plaintiff to the extent that it is reasonable to prove that the plaintiff had the cost of authorization on a different amount of expenses from the content of the return, and that there was a fact that the plaintiff had the cost of authorization on a different amount of expenses from the same amount. As to the existence and amount of the return cost and other expenses, it is necessary to prove that it is easy for the taxpayer to present all data such as the account books and documentary evidence regarding the specific cost disbursement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Nu3407, Jul. 14, 1995). (b) According to the statement No. 30-1 of the evidence, the tax invoice of this case is issued without supply of goods or services, and it is recognized that the plaintiff and the plaintiff were supplied with the service of this case from each of the tax invoice of this case to the Gap under Article 10 (3) 1 of the Tax Evaders Act.

C. However, considering the various circumstances indicated in the judgment of the first instance court, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff paid A, etc. expenses equivalent to the supply value of the instant tax invoice only by the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff.

1) If the Plaintiff was supplied with the service of selling in lots from the sales team, including AA, and paid the commission fees, the total amount of the commission paid must be accurately stated even if the Plaintiff was not accurately aware of the distribution of the commission within the sales team. However, the Plaintiff made an incomplete statement about the entire amount of the commission paid during the investigation process for the instant disposition or during the instant lawsuit. In particular, according to the settlement statement submitted by the Plaintiff (Evidence A No. 4-1), the Plaintiff agreed to pay the fee of KRW 492,90,000 to AA, etc. In the instant lawsuit, 356,00,000 out of the agreed fee was remitted to AB rental car account and received the instant tax invoice, and the remaining 136,90,000,000 won was withheld and paid to A, etc. However, according to the Plaintiff’s statement No. 12-30,000,0000 won, it is difficult to conclude that the amount of the Plaintiff’s tax invoice was paid as KRW 400,00,00,00.

2) According to the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 4 through 7, BB,CC, and D submitted a confirmation document on official tax affairs around June 2016 through July 7, 2016 to the plaintiff and sent it to the plaintiff's employee. The plaintiff created false expenses by means of receiving false tax invoices using the passbook, and then withdrawn full amount in cash so as not to track the funds. As can be known by the respective statements in Nos. 10 through 19 and the purport of the whole pleadings, most of the tax invoices in this case were transferred to the plaintiff, ABene, ABB Buddhist Cultural Welfare Foundation, and HBS Foundation, and made it difficult to conclude that Gap's statement was made in cash for the following reasons: Gap's statement was made in excess of KRW 19 million; Eul's statement was made in excess of KRW 200,000,000, KRW 300,000, KRW 19,000, KRW 19,000.

3) In the course of the instant disposition, A and H made a statement that is consistent with the Plaintiff’s assertion, whether the Plaintiff did not make a statement as to the facts in response to the investigation of the K Maritime Affairs, and thereafter made a statement that is consistent with the Plaintiff’s assertion (Article 20 through 22, and 31 of the A, witness A and H of the first instance trial). However, the Plaintiff’s statement merely repeats the Plaintiff’s assertion that is being in the instant lawsuit. On the other hand, the Plaintiff made a statement that does not make specific statements or is inconsistent with other evidence regarding the number and composition of the sales team, the principal, or other team members at the time of the instant disposition, and that H made a statement that is contrary to other evidence or inconsistent with the amount of fees received (Evidence evidence No. 13) at the time of the instant disposition (Evidence evidence No. 13).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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