The early high-2014-west-2857

Where a person makes a transaction with a representative in the name of the actual businessman with knowledge of his/her name, it constitutes a disguised tax invoice.

In the case of trading with the real businessman with the name of the representative, it constitutes a disguised tax invoice, and in the case of trading with the knowledge of such fact, the business registration number is the same but only the name of the representative of the person who is supplied is different from the fact.

2015Guhap59150 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing a Value-Added Tax

AA

O Head of tax office

2015.08.28

2015.18

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

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 60,734,51 on July 16, 201 against the Plaintiff on KRW 9,897,150 on the first term portion of value-added tax for the year 201; KRW 16,712,180 on the second term portion of value-added tax for the year 201; KRW 16,593,029 on the first term portion of value-added tax for the year 201; KRW 19,205,820 on the first term portion of value-added tax for the year 2012; and KRW 18,278,740 on the second term value-added tax for the year 2012 is revoked

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a business operator who has completed business registration under the trade name of 'aaaaaaaa' in the OO-dong OO-dong O-O, and carries out interior works.

B. From around 2007 to 2012, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice stating that one of the registered entrepreneurs (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant suppliers”) is the supplier. From the first to the second taxable period of value-added tax in 2007, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice of KRW 5,116,837,000 in total from the first to the second taxable period of value-added tax in 2010, and issued a tax invoice of KRW 5,60,139,00 in total from the second taxable period of value-added tax in 201 to the second taxable period of value-added tax in 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant tax invoice”).

No.

Number of registration

Trade Name and Name

1

000-00-0000

Trade Name

BBBBB

Name

bb

Type of project

Construction, Earsenia

2

000-00-0000

Trade Name

CCC

Name

c c

Type of project

Construction, Earsenia

3

000-00-0000

Trade Name

DDD

Name

dd)

Type of project

Construction, Earsenia

4

000-00-0000

Trade Name

EEEE;

Name

e

Type of project

Construction, Earsenia

C. The Defendant: (a) on the ground that the instant business operator is the FFF representative of the FFF and the Plaintiff’s smallest group of Fff, the Plaintiff on July 16, 2013; (b) on the ground that all or part of the necessary entries in the tax invoice issued as above are different from the fact during the period of the second value-added tax in 2007 through 2010; (c) the former Value-Added Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 9915, Jan. 1, 2010; Act No. 10409, Dec. 27, 2011; and (d) the amount equivalent to 1/100 of the supply price of each relevant tax invoice during each taxable period and the amount equivalent to 20/100 of the supply price of the goods or services issued under Article 22(2)1 of the former Value-Added Tax Act, constitutes an additional tax for each taxable period of 201 through 201.

Taxation Period

Additional tax notice amount of tax invoice;

1, 2007

1,575,000

207 Second Period

1,968,250

1, 2008

4,736,00

Second Period, 2008

4,597,000

1, 2009

6,964,650

Second Period, 2009

12,934,300

1, 2010

10,008,500

2010 Second Period

8,384,670

Sub-committees

51,168,370

1, 2011

50,837,360

2011 Second Period

24,880,840

1, 2012

19,205,820

2012 Second Period

18,278,740

Sub-committees

113,202,760

Total

164,371,130

D. On October 14, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office regarding the imposition of penalty tax. On October 31, 2013, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office decided to rectify the notified amount of penalty tax calculated by deducting the total of KRW 51,168,372 from the first to the second taxable period of the value-added tax in 2007.

E. The Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal regarding the disposition of imposing additional tax from the first to the second taxable period of the value-added tax in 2011 (hereinafter “instant disposition”), but was dismissed on April 1, 2015.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1-4, Gap evidence 2-1 through 4, Gap evidence 3-1-12, Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 5-1, 2, Eul evidence 1-1 through 10, Eul evidence 5, Eul evidence 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) As the Plaintiff issued the instant tax invoice under the name of the business place that directly supplied the instant service, it does not constitute a case where a tax invoice is issued in the name of the business place (a person who actually supplied the service) that did not actually receive the service. Therefore, Article 22(3)4 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11608, Jan. 1, 2013) that applies to disguised transactions is not applicable to the instant tax invoice, and the instant disposition based on such premise is unlawful.

2) If it is unreasonable to expect a taxpayer to fulfill his/her duty, penalty cannot be imposed. It is too harsh to expect the Plaintiff to issue a tax invoice indicating afff as the actual representative of the instant business entity. As such, the instant disposition is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

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

C. Determination

1) Facts of recognition

If Gap evidence 1-1 to 4, evidence 2-1 to 4, evidence 4, evidence 5-1, evidence 5-2, evidence 6-1 to 3, Eul evidence 2, 3, and 5 are added to the whole purport of the pleadings, the following facts are recognized:

A) The representative of the FFFF and the Plaintiff’s third-party fff, which are the Plaintiff’s third-party fff, are the parts of BB’s bb’s cc anddd’s c and e’s e’s fff.

B) At the time of the registration of the business with respect to the instant business operators, Bb, Cc, c, D, and e received a request from fff to lend the name, and the identification card, seal, passbook, etc. was put to theff. The instant business operators completed the registration of the business with respect to the instant business operators by using the fff.

C) If it is necessary for the oo and OOO (OO), which is the clothes store of FFFFFF, thefff for which he is his representative, requested for an estimate to the instant business operator, using the business registration regarding the instant business operator, and the said operator requested that one of the instant business operators designate one of the instant business operators, who is the other parties, prepare a contract and issue a tax invoice stating that he is the recipient of the contract. Such work was in charge of hhggg and hh, which is the executive director of FFFF, who is the Plaintiff.

D) On the other hand, bb, cc, dd, e did not independently supply goods or services in relation to construction business or human life.

E) The Plaintiff, despite being aware of the above circumstances, prepared a contract with the designated one of the instant enterprisers as the other party, and issued a tax invoice indicating the name of the enterpriser, and delivered it to the FFF employees employees of the FFF.

2) Whether a tax invoice is issued in the name of a person who is not actually supplied with goods or services

A) Comprehensively taking account of the above facts acknowledged, a person who actually received goods or services from the Plaintiff is a representative of FFFFF, and the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice stating the registration number, trade name, name, etc. of the instant business operator who is not afff, thereby issuing a tax invoice in the name of a person who is not the actual recipient of the goods or services.

B) Furthermore, the Plaintiff asserts that, insofar as the registration number of the business place that provided the service is properly indicated in the tax invoice, the name of the person who provided the service is merely a voluntary entry in the tax invoice and does not constitute the issuance of the tax invoice in the name of the person who is not the actual supplier. However, since the registration number of the business place stated in the tax invoice in this case is the place of business of the business operator that completed the registration, and the rights and obligations arising therefrom are also vested in that person, the registration number of the business place stated in the tax invoice in this case is also vested in the name of the business operator that completed the registration, and the issuance of the tax invoice in this case by stating the registration number of the business operator registered in this case is not a bbb, cc, c, dd, e, which is not a fff actually supplied with the goods or services. Therefore, it is sufficient that the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3) Under the tax law whether there is a justifiable reason for nonperformance of an obligation, where a taxpayer violates various obligations, such as a return and tax payment, as prescribed by the Act without justifiable grounds, in order to facilitate the exercise of the right to impose taxes and the realization of a tax claim, an additional tax may not be imposed, if there is a justifiable reason not attributable to nonperformance of an obligation, such as where it is unreasonable to expect the taxpayer to fulfill the obligation as an administrative sanction imposed under the individual tax law (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du3682, Oct. 27, 201).

However, it is recognized as above that the Plaintiff had been aware of the circumstances such as the above facts of recognition when issuing the tax invoice of this case. The Plaintiff cannot be said to have justifiable reasons for issuing the tax invoice in the name of a person, not the person who actually received the goods or services, solely on the ground that the Plaintiff was in an inferior status as a subordinate company in reality.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is without merit, and all of them are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Relevant statutes

▣ 구 부가가치세법(2010. 1. 1. 법률 제9915호로 개정되기 전의 것)

Article 22 (Additional Tax)

1. (Omission)

(2) Where an entrepreneur falls under any of the following subparagraphs, the value of supply shall be 1/100 of the value of supply:

The equivalent amount shall be added to the payable tax amount or deducted from the refundable tax amount.

1. An error or error in all or some of the necessary entries in a tax invoice issued pursuant to Article 16;

Where the entry is not entered in the room or is different from the fact;

1. (Omission)

▣ 구 부가가치세법(2010. 12. 27. 법률 제10409호로 개정되어 2011. 1. 1.부터 시행되기 전

of this section)

Article 22 (Additional Tax)

1. (Omission)

(2) Where an entrepreneur falls under any of the following subparagraphs, 1/100 of the value of supply shall apply to the value of supply:

(Omission) The amount equivalent to (Omission) shall either be added to the payable tax amount or deducted from the refundable tax amount.

1. An error or error in all or some of the necessary entries in a tax invoice issued pursuant to Article 16;

Where the person is not actually entered or falsely entered;

1. (Omission)

▣ 구 부가가치세법(2013. 1. 1. 법률 제11608호로 개정되기 전의 것)

Article 22 (Additional Tax)

1. (Omission)

(3) Where an entrepreneur falls under any of the following, the value of supply (in cases falling under subparagraph 2, such value):

An amount equivalent to 2/100 on a tax invoice (referring to the amount entered in the tax invoice) shall be added to the payable tax amount.

shall be excluded from the amount of the tax refund.

1. (Omission)

4. A person who is not the actual supplier of goods or services, but the actual supplier or the actual supplier thereof;

a tax invoice is issued in any name other than that of a person who is supplied with goods or services;

1. (Omission) end: