Double Taxation

When paying a certain ratio of sales within the department store as rent, the disposition imposing the omitted portion on the person who runs the retail business on the basis of the payment rent is justifiable, and it is not recognized as there is no objective evidence that the sales of other stores outside the department store are included twice.

Article 4 of the Value-Added Tax Act

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax for the second period of 202 against the Plaintiff on July 16, 2004 (37,284310), 29,569,365 won, shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts are recognized by comprehensively taking account of each description of evidence Nos. 1 to 4, 2, 3-1.2, 4, 5, or the whole purport of the pleadings, either under dispute between the parties or under dispute.

A. On July 1, 2002, the Plaintiff opened a trade name, i.e., ○○○○○○○-dong 502-3 ○○○○ shopping Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “○○○○○○ department store”) on the 7th floor of “○○○○○○○○○○ store” (hereinafter referred to as “○○ department store”), and reported that there was no sales at the time of filing a value-added tax return for the two-year period of 2002 to the Defendant.” However, on January 13, 2004, the Defendant reported that there was no sales at the time of filing a value-added tax return for the second period of 2002 to the Defendant.

In the above taxation period, "tax investigation was conducted after notification of taxation data that an amount equivalent to 408,45,454 won (hereinafter referred to as "amount omitted in the sales of this case") was made during the above taxation period, and on July 16, 2004, value-added tax was imposed on the plaintiff 5,61,200 won (including additional tax) of the amount omitted in the sales," and "after which the defendant, around November 2004, excluded the amount of 134,608,181 won from the tax base and corrected the amount of tax to 42,150,390 won, and revised the amount of tax to 37,284,310 won by newly calculating penalty tax around October 28, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "revision disposition of this case as of July 16, 2004," and the disposition of this case was legitimate.

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant disposition shall be revoked on the grounds that it is unlawful for the following reasons.

“(1) (A) The Plaintiff had operated an Aminian retail store (hereinafter “○○○○ shop”) under the trade name “○○○○○○ shop” before commencing the instant business. However, the Plaintiff demanded that ○○○ department store pay rent in proportion to the sales amount under the terms and conditions of the sales of the instant business establishment and maintain monthly sales amount of at least KRW 70 million.” (B) However, from July 2002 to December 2002, the Plaintiff did not know the opening of the instant business and did not know the sales amount, and treated it as a credit card terminal of ○○ department store in order to meet the above terms and conditions of the sales amount. (2) The sales amount of the instant business was calculated as value-added tax (hereinafter “the instant sales amount”) and disposed of as the sales amount of the instant business without the verification of the sales amount of ○○ department store in violation of the principle of the sales amount of ○○ department store.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Facts

In addition to each of the above evidence Nos. 6, 7, 8-1 and 2 of evidence Nos. 8-1 and 2 of the witness and some of the witness ○○○, the following facts are recognized:

"(1) In order to sell ○○○○○○○-dong, 109-2, the Plaintiff also operated ○○○-dong, 109-2, and operated △△△△△△△△△△△△ shop in the same Dong (hereinafter referred to as “△△△△△ department store”)." (2) With respect to the lease of ○○ department store and the instant workplace, the Plaintiff agreed to pay rent KRW 29,86,725, monthly basic rent to KRW 4,64,00, and if monthly sales amount is more than KRW 72,972,00,00, 7% of monthly sales amount per 72,000, monthly sales amount was deducted from the sales and management fees in the manner of settlement of accounts through the POS system, which was managed by the instant ○ department store.

(3) The head of ○○○○ Tax Office confirmed the data, etc. related to the fees of △△ department stores in the process of checking the validity of the Plaintiff’s revised return on value-added tax for the second period of 2002 and the request for correction on the △ department stores in the instant workplace and notified the Defendant of the omitted sales of the instant workplace.

(4) The Plaintiff also issues processing sales invoices for the △△ department stores in the name of the ○○ workplace, and filed a return on the tax invoice issued by the △ department stores on the basis of the input tax amount at the time of filing the preliminary return of the value-added tax on the ○○ workplace

(5) The Plaintiff asserted that in the process of filing an objection against the instant disposition, the sales of the instant place of business was double calculated based on the sales day, etc., even though the sales day of the instant place of business constituted ○○○. However, the sales day between the instant place of business and the instant place of business was separated.

is not described in this chapter.

(6) Meanwhile, among the two years of 2002, sales tax invoices amounting to KRW 2,336,364 were issued except for cash sales.

(7) The Plaintiff, without separately preparing a warehouse for each place of business, delivers products sold while keeping skins, etc. in one warehouse.

D. Determination

(1) In principle, in a case where the tax authority intends to correct any error or omission in the details of a return on the tax base of value-added tax, etc. or the amount of tax payable due to the erroneous or omission thereof, it shall be based on the books or evidence while conducting a field investigation. However, the field investigation is not limited to the specific method so that it can be objectively based on the method of distributing actual income, and there is no special limitation on the method, so that there is no error or omission by other data, such as a written confirmation other than the books, and it is possible to conduct a field investigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Du12589

In addition, in the administrative litigation seeking the revocation of a taxation disposition on the grounds of illegality, the tax authority bears the burden of proof as a matter of principle with respect to the legality of the disposition and the existence of a taxation requirement. However, with respect to the existence of a special circumstance in experience, the taxpayer must bear the burden of proof or burden of proof (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Nu3407, Jul. 14,

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the POS system operated by the ○○ department store as above is automatically calculated based on the sales of the instant workplace on a date, and thus, the sales amount in itself should be calculated accurately. The relevant materials are also subject to on-site investigations.

It is reasonable to view that the case constitutes a basis for evidence, and the department store received money first and thereafter receive it later.

In light of the empirical rule to deem that there was considerable sales on the part of the Plaintiff as to the sales on the part of the sales on the part of the sales on the part of the business place in question, such as Aminianian, etc., the burden of proof or the necessity of proving that such sales did not actually occur is to be considered to have returned to the Plaintiff. Nevertheless, the data submitted by the Plaintiff alone are insufficient to determine which item overlaps, which kind of sales on the part of the business place, and that the Plaintiff did not have any separate warehouse, so long as the customer directly calculated the sales on the part of the business place in this case, the sales on the part of the Plaintiff can be evaluated as sales on the part of the business place in this case, and that at least 2,336,364 won issued a tax invoice cannot overlap with the sales on the part of the sales on the part of the business place in question, which constitutes the key sales on the part of the sales on the part of the business place in this case, and there is no sufficient evidence to conclude that the sales on the part of the Plaintiff constitutes sales on the business place in this case.

(3) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is neither reasonable nor reasonable, since the instant disposition was issued without any ground nor constitutes double taxation.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so ordered as per Disposition.

shall be ruled.

Relevant statutes

Value-Added Tax Act

Article 4 (Place of Tax Payment)

(1) Value-added tax shall be paid for each workplace.

(2) Where a business operator has two or more places of business, he may pay them together at the principal place of business in accordance with the Presidential Decree.

(4) The scope of business under paragraph (1) shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Article 6 (Supply of Goods)

(1) The supply of goods shall be a delivery or transfer of goods pursuant to all contractual and legal grounds.

Article 21 (Rectification)

(1) The head of a district tax office having jurisdiction over a place of business, the Commissioner of the competent Regional Tax Office or the Commissioner of the National Tax Service shall correct the tax base or tax amount payable for the taxable period

2. Where there are any mistakes or omissions in details of the final tax return;

(2) Where the head of a district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of business, the head of a district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of business or the Commissioner of the National Tax Service revises the tax base and amount of tax refund for each taxable period pursuant to paragraph (1), he/she shall correct it on the basis of tax invoices, books and other evidence:

1. Where tax invoices, books, and other evidence necessary for calculating the tax base do not exist or important parts are incomplete;

2. Where the contents of tax invoices, account books, and other evidence are obviously false in light of the facility size, the number of employees, and the market price of raw materials, commodities, products, or various charges.

3. Where the contents of tax invoices, account books, and other documentary evidence are obviously false in light of the quantity of raw materials used, power used, and other operational conditions.

Enforcement Decree of the same Act

Article 4 (Scope of Places of Business)

(1) The place of business as referred to in Article 4 (1) of the Act shall be the place where a business operator or his employee presides at all or part of transactions.