Value-added tax assessment is unreasonable when the cause of transfer is considered as the purchase price.

Examining the above facts and the records and arguments, it is difficult to view the funds transferred from KimE as the sales proceeds of the goods to KimE, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge them.

2013Guhap10438 Disposition to revoke the imposition of value-added tax

EK

The Director of Incheon Tax Office

September 12, 2013

November 7, 2013

1. The imposition of value-added tax on June 29, 2012 by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on June 29, 2012 is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1) The Plaintiff stated the date of disposition in the purport of the claim on July 6, 2012, but it appears to be a clerical error.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From May 20, 2002, the Plaintiff was engaged in clothing and miscellaneous retail business on March 4, 2013, 2013, with the trade name of "CCC" (hereinafter "DD") in 193 OO-Gu O-dong 235 BB underground shopping districts from O-si, O-si, O-si, O-si.

B. On April 20, 201, between April 20, 201 and June 13, 2011, the head of the Dongjak District Tax Office conducted a partial investigation into the part of the individual entrepreneur for the portion belonging to the year 2007 against KimE that engaged in the chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip from January 1, 2007 to June 30, 2007, he notified the Defendant of the taxation data that the Plaintiff omitted from the sales amount, and on June 29, 2012, the Defendant deemed that the said amount was omitted from the sales amount, and notified the Plaintiff of the correction and notification of the value-added tax 1 minute on June 29, 2012.

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an appeal on September 28, 2012. On January 30, 2013, the Tax Tribunal issued an order to rectify the tax base and tax amount by re-auditing whether the amount remitted from the OOE’s account at the OOE branch and the OOO members transferred from the OOE’s account at a new bank account and dismissed the remainder of the claim.

D. According to the above decision, the Defendant conducted a reinvestigation from February 15, 2013 to February 20, 2013, and confirmed that the amount transferred from the KimE account to the Plaintiff’s account from January 1, 2007 to June 30, 2007, and decided to reduce the amount of OOO won from the value-added tax initially imposed on February 19, 2013 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 16 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff received money from KimE merely from the Plaintiff’s act of ordering the Plaintiff to sell clothes in lieu of the intention of sale in the Internet shopping mall of KimE in order to support KimE, not from the sales of clothing that the Plaintiff received from KimE, but from the Plaintiff’s first commencement of the clothing sales business, and later, receiving the Plaintiff’s payment of clothes purchase price paid on behalf of the Plaintiff from KimE (including the payment of partial business funds). Thus, the instant disposition was unlawful on the premise that the Plaintiff’s payment of the money transferred from KimE is the sales price, which is the payment for the supply of goods.

B. Relevant statutes

former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9268 of Dec. 26, 2008)

Article 2 (Taxpayer)

(1) A person who independently supplies goods (referring to the goods prescribed in Article 1; hereinafter the same shall apply) or services (referring to the services prescribed in Article 1; hereinafter the same shall apply) on a business basis, regardless of whether it is on a commercial basis or not (hereinafter referred to as an "business operator") shall be liable to pay value

C. Determination

In light of the above facts, while the Plaintiff received money from KimE, that is, the sales of the goods, the Plaintiff operated the clothing retail business for the first period of 2007, and the Plaintiff transferred the money from KimE’s account to the Plaintiff’s account, the Plaintiff continued to operate the clothing 2-42 of the Plaintiff’s 24th anniversary of the Plaintiff’s purchase of the goods, i.e., the Plaintiff’s use of the clothing 2-2 of the 2005 OE-2 of the 207 OE-2 of the 207 OE-2 of the 207 OE-27 OE-27 of the 207 OE-27th of the 206 OE-27th of the 207 OE-27th of the 24th of the 205 OE-27th of the 207 OE-27th of the 207 OE-27th of the 27th of the 27 OE.

The above facts and arguments revealed as follows: (i) it is difficult to conclude that the money remitted to the Plaintiff’s passbook at the time of the tax investigation is the price for goods; (ii) it is difficult to impose value-added tax on transactions conducted without any business purpose in the interpretation of Article 2(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act; (iii) it is not deemed that the Plaintiff supplied clothes to KimE for business purposes; (iv) it is sufficiently possible for the Plaintiff to make a transaction without such documents in light of the relationship with KimE and the Plaintiff, and this Section; (v) it is difficult to recognize that the Defendant jointly operated the Internet shopping mall by the Plaintiff, KimE, and this Section 1; and (v) it is difficult to recognize the Plaintiff’s duty to jointly pay for the sale of the goods from KimE, KimE, and KimE, without any special reason or benefit to purchase the goods from the Plaintiff, who is a clothing retailer; and (v) it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff’s obligation to jointly pay for sale of the goods from the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, regardless of its content, were transferred to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the instant disposition taken on a different premise is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.