Cho High Court Decision 2012 Deputy 5034 (O6, 2013)

The denial of necessary expenses due to the receipt of processing tax invoices that do not engage in real transactions is legitimate.

The disposition denying necessary expenses is legitimate because the Customer was accused of the material and there is no financial evidence that can identify the fact of the actual disbursement, and the purchase account book submitted cannot be seen as reliable material.

Article 27 (Calculation of Necessary Expenses) of the Income Tax Act

2013Guhap1769 global income and revocation of disposition

HAA

○ Head of tax office

September 26, 2013

November 7, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of the global income tax OOO in 2009 against the Plaintiff on September 2, 2012 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff engaged in the manufacture and sales of main and subsidiary material in the name of “BB commercial” in the OO-O-dong O-O(O), and received six copies of the purchase tax invoice for the first term portion in 2009 from “CC metal located in O-O(O-O)” in the O-O(O-O(O), and deducted the amount from the payable tax amount, deducted the amount from the total tax amount, and filed a return on the value added tax for the second term portion in 2009 and the aggregate income tax for the second term in 2009.

B. On July 4, 201, the director of the competent tax office conducted a tracking investigation onCC metal and notified the Defendant of the taxation data (hereinafter referred to as the “the instant tax invoice”) by denying necessary expenses for the purchase amount of the instant tax invoice on September 2, 201, and filing a complaint with the Gwangju District Public Prosecutor’s Office on the maximum E and MaximumD among the 6 supply value of the said tax invoice issued byCC metal to the Plaintiff, and notifying the Defendant of the assessment data (hereinafter referred to as the “the instant tax invoice”). The Defendant denied necessary expenses for the purchase amount of the instant tax invoice on September 2, 2012, 2009, thereby correcting and notifying the global income tax office for global income tax for 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on November 13, 2012, but was dismissed on February 6, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), 3, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Although the tax invoice of this case was acquired through a real transaction, the defendant was illegal since the disposition of this case was made and issued without real transaction.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) In the event that a tax invoice on a part of the expenses reported by a taxpayer has been prepared in a false manner without real transactions, which is proved to a considerable extent by the tax authority as to whether it is an actual cost, and the purpose of the expenses alleged by the taxpayer and the other party to the payment thereof have been proved to a considerable extent, a taxpayer need to prove that it is easy for the taxpayer to present data, such as books and evidence regarding the fact that such expenses have been actually paid (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du1439, Aug. 20

2) According to the above legal principles and evidence as seen earlier, since it is difficult for the Plaintiff to find out the following circumstances, namely, (i) the Plaintiff’s actual purchase price for the first quarter of 2009, and (ii) the Plaintiff issued six copies of purchase tax invoices for the second quarter of 2009, on the grounds that it is difficult for the Plaintiff to find that the above details of the tax invoices were reliable, because it was difficult for the Plaintiff to find out that the above details of the tax invoices were non-existent, and that there was no other objective evidence that the Plaintiff purchased the receipts for the first quarter of 200, including those of the Plaintiff’s sales to purchase the receipts for the first quarter of 209, and that there was no other objective evidence that the Plaintiff purchased the receipts for the first quarter of 20,000, and that there was no additional tax invoice for the first quarter of 20,000 that the above details of the tax invoices were purchased for the first quarter of 20,000,000 won.

3) Therefore, the Defendant’s instant disposition is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed for reasons.