early 2012 Middle 2255 ( October 27, 2012)

Whether the Plaintiff’s good faith and negligence, which received a false tax invoice, is not recognized

The Plaintiff’s shipment slips and oil supply confirmation form did not contain all the descriptions on the purchaser. Rather, the third-party companies were required to make an additional effort to verify the actual supply route of oil, but did not take such measures. As such, it is difficult to regard the Plaintiff as a bona fide trading partner because the circumstances leading up to the suspension of transaction with Adozx and the conclusion of the oil supply contract with the data company are not clear.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2012Guhap28444 Disposition to revoke the imposition of value-added tax

IsaA

Head of the Office of Government

June 25, 2013

August 27, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On February 1, 2012, the defendant revoked the imposition of value-added tax OOOO for the second term of 2009 against the plaintiff (the head of the office stated "OOO", but it appears to be a clerical error).

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From January 1, 2008, the Plaintiff operated “CC gas station” in 188 as OO at OO.m.

B. In 2009, the Plaintiff received the purchase tax invoice (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) from Nonparty DD (hereinafter “DD”) for the second taxable period of value added tax (hereinafter “instant taxable period”), and deducted the relevant input tax amount from the output tax amount, and completed the final tax return for the second taxable period of value added tax in 2009.

C. From May 10, 2010 to June 25, 2010, the K-UOO tax office conducted a survey on data on DD, and completed a total of the supply value of DD 21 gas stations during the instant taxable period, processed the total of the supply value of DD 21 gas stations, and included the instant tax invoice.

D. On February 1, 2012, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the foregoing content as taxation data, and determined that the instant tax invoice constitutes a tax invoice written differently from the fact by the supplier, and accordingly, issued the instant disposition to correct and notify the Plaintiff of the value-added tax OOO for the second period of February 1, 2009.

E. On May 1, 2012, the Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal on February 8, 2012, but was dismissed on June 27, 2012.

[Ground of Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 5 1, 2, Gap evidence 6, and Eul evidence 1 to 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) According to the data review of the data on DD conducted by the KUG, and since some of the purchase amount of DD oil during the instant taxable period was identified as normal transaction, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have sufficiently proven that the instant tax invoice was “tax invoice different from the fact” (Dispute 1).

2) The Plaintiff, while receiving the business registration certificate of DD and the copy of the corporate passbook in advance, verified the entry items, such as the type on the shipment slip, the transporter, etc., and did not neglect the duty of care by receiving the transaction statement, the tax invoice from DD, and depositing the oil price into the account under the name of DD (Dispute 2).

3) The instant disposition solely based on the survey opinion (Evidence No. 2) on DD without any further investigation against the Plaintiff, who is liable for duty payment, constitutes a ground taxation violation and an individual taxation violation (Article 3).

B. Relevant statutes

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

C. Determination

1) Determination on key issues 1

(A) Article 17(2) of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9268 of Dec. 26, 2008) provides that input tax shall not be deducted from the output tax amount in cases where the details of a tax invoice are different from the facts. The meaning that it is different from the fact is merely the name of the taxable income, income, and property, and where there is a person to whom it actually belongs, the person to whom it actually belongs shall be liable for tax payment. In light of the purport of Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 17(2) provides that "in cases where the details of the tax invoice are inconsistent with those of the person to whom the goods or services are actually supplied or supplied, regardless of the formal contents of the transaction contract, etc. made between the parties to the goods or services, the person to whom the goods or services are supplied and the person to whom the services are supplied are actually supplied or supplied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu617, Dec. 10, 1996).

In addition, in the event that a tax invoice submitted by a person liable to pay value-added tax as a basis for input tax deduction was prepared falsely without a real transaction, or that entries in a tax invoice are different from the fact, the tax authority proves that it is a real purchase or the authenticity of entries in a tax invoice is disputed, and that a transaction with a supplier listed in a tax invoice claimed by a person liable to pay value-added tax has been proved to be reasonable, it is necessary to prove that it is easy for a person liable to present data, such as books and evidence, about the actual transaction with a supplier listed in the tax invoice (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du1439, Aug

(B) In light of the above legal principles, the non-party 2's tax invoice is less than 1 to 3, the non-party 5's 2's , and the non-party 2's 3's 2's 2's 3's 3's d'one d's d', the plaintiff's d's e-chemical (hereinafter referred to as the "E-chemical")'s d' if the plaintiff's d's d'one d's d's d's d's d' were entered in the above d', and the non-party 2's d'one d's d's d's d's d's d's d's d's d's d's d's d's d's d's d's d's d's d's d's d'.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

2

2) Determination on key issues 2

(A) An entrepreneur who actually supplies and a supplier’s other tax invoices are different from the actual entries, and barring any special circumstance that there is no negligence in not knowing the fact that the supplier was unaware of the nominal name of the tax invoice, the input tax amount cannot be deducted or refunded, and the supplier was not negligent in not knowing the above nominal name (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu4920, Jun. 27, 1997). Furthermore, in cases where there are sufficient circumstances to doubt whether the actual supplier was, and the actual supplier was, in light of the details of the issuance and delivery of the tax invoice, and the price of the goods or services supplied, and the specific route and situation in which the goods or services were supplied, and the supplier was not aware of the fact that the recipient was not aware of the actual nominal name, the recipient’s certificate of registration of the supplier’s business or business facilities, and the sales permit of the goods or services, and the sales specifications of the supplier’s sales permit, etc. are insufficient to deem that there was no negligence in the actual name.

(B) In light of the above legal principles, it is necessary to pay close attention to whether the oil supplier is a actual supplier because the following is a social problem that can be recognized by comprehensively considering the purpose of the entire arguments as follows: (i) the supply structure of the oil industry is complicated and tax-free oil is frequent; (ii) the oil supplier is in need of careful attention as to whether the oil supplier is a actual supplier; and (iii) the oil supply slip and the oil supply confirmation slip kept by the Plaintiff were written as the third company, i.e., the EE petroleum chemical, and the EE chemical were written as the customer or supplier; and (iv) there is sufficient room for the Plaintiff to see whether the Plaintiff is a actual supplier; and (iv) the Plaintiff was not negligent in making any further efforts to see whether the Plaintiff was a witness’s actual supplier; and (v) the Plaintiff did not know that the Plaintiff was not negligent in entering into the agreement with the witness number No. 1 or No. 5.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3) Determination on key issues 3

In addition to the descriptions of Eul evidence No. 2 on the above facts, and based on sufficient evidence such as shipping slips on EE petroleum chemistry, and shipping slips on the plaintiff, etc. who are financial transaction and sales office, the purchaser in the course of investigation into DD, it is recognized that the tax invoice of this case has been fully processed, and it is difficult to view the disposition of this case as an illegal disposition against the principle of base taxation, etc. merely because the defendant did not undergo additional fact-finding procedures against the plaintiff.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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