Since it is reasonable to see that the plaintiff actually controlled and managed business income, the plaintiff is the actual business operator and the plaintiff is the taxpayer.

The facts presented by the Plaintiff alone cannot be deemed to be merely a mere lending of the name in relation to the instant building. Rather, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff had practically controlled and managed the income while constructing the instant building and operating the real estate leasing business. Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful.

Article 14 (Real Taxation)

2016 disposition of revocation of imposition of value-added tax, etc.

○ Kim

○ Head of tax office

8.17

. 14, 2017

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The imposition of global income tax on the 200-year 200-year 200-year 200-year 200-year 200-year 200-year 200, global income tax on the 200-year 20-year 200, global income tax on the 200-year 20-year 200, and global income tax on the

A. The Plaintiff is a person who registered his/her business regarding the real estate leasing business in ○○-ro, ○○-ro (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”).

B. The Plaintiff entered into a construction contract with the construction of BB building (hereinafter “instant building”) on the ground of the instant land between the Plaintiff and ○○○○○ Construction (hereinafter “AA Construction”). The construction cost set out in the contract for the said new construction contract is written in the form of KRW 00 (value added tax).

C. Around 200, the Defendant: (a) conducted an investigation into a tax offense case against the Plaintiff; (b) calculated the value-added tax and the global income tax again on 200, on 200, on the ground that the Plaintiff received false tax invoices equivalent to the total value of supply from AA Construction (the total value of supply for 200,000, and the total value of supply for 100,000); (c) calculated the value-added tax and the global income tax again on 200,000; (d) the value-added tax for 200,000, for 10,000, for 200, for 200, for 200, and 00,000 global income tax for 200, respectively (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff appealed to the instant disposition on 200. 0. 00. ○. The Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on 200. 0. 0.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 4 (including serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff only lent the name of the business operator with respect to the instant building to CCC, and the actual business operator of the instant building is CCC, and the instant disposition is unlawful as it violates the principle of substantial taxation.

B. Relevant statutes

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

C. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes declares the principle of substantial taxation by stipulating that “if the ownership of income, profit, property, act, or transaction subject to taxation is merely nominal and there is another person to whom such income, profit, property, act, or transaction belongs, the person to whom such income, profit, act, or transaction belongs shall be liable to pay taxes.” Therefore, if there is another person who substantially controls and manages such income, profit, property, act, transaction, etc. different from the nominal owner, the nominal owner shall not be the person to whom such income, profit, or appearance belongs, but the person who actually controls and manages the relevant taxable object pursuant to the principle of substantial taxation shall be the person to whom such income, profit, property, act, or transaction belongs. In addition, the determination of whether it falls under such a case shall be made by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances such as the developments leading up

On the other hand, in principle, the tax authority bears the burden of proving the existence and the tax base of the tax requirement. This also applies to cases where the tax authority contests that the nominal titleholder of the transaction and the substantial subject of attribution are different, barring any special circumstances, such as a separate legal provision converting the burden of proof. However, as long as the tax authority imposed tax on the nominal titleholder by deeming the nominal titleholder as the actual trader, it is necessary for the nominal titleholder to assert and prove that the nominal titleholder of the transaction, etc. is different. In this case, the need for proof is sufficient to the extent that the judge has a reasonable doubt about the fulfillment of the tax requirement. As a result, if it is unclear whether the substance of the transaction, etc. belongs to the nominal titleholder, and it becomes impossible to obtain conviction of the judge, then the disadvantage therefrom is back to the tax authority bearing the ultimate burden of proof (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Du9935, May 16, 2014).

A) If evidence Nos. 3 through 7 added the purport of the entire pleadings, ① CCC or CCC’s husband DDDDD managed the Plaintiff’s Suhyup account (Account Number-O-O), ② DDD was mainly involved in the execution of funds and tax-related affairs related to the construction of the instant building; ② EE, the buyer of the instant building, filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff and CCC for a claim for the refund of the purchase price; ② FF and DD participated in the instant case; ③ CCC returned the purchase price pursuant to the conciliation; ③ in collusion with CCC, DD was to build a new GG building under the name of CCC; ③ DD was to build a new GG building under the name of CCC and to build a new ○○○○○○○○-Gu, in collusion with CCC, and was to be punished by imprisonment with prison labor and value-added tax for submission of false tax invoices and for any other reason, and the Prosecutor was sentenced to suspended execution in January, 200, and both of the appeal court and the Prosecutor were sentenced to suspended execution.

B) However, in full view of the following facts and circumstances, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the contents of evidence Nos. 3, 5, and 7 and the purport of the entire pleadings as seen earlier, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff merely lent the title to CCC with respect to the building of this case. Rather, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff actually controlled and managed the income while constructing the building of this case through CCC or DD and operating the real estate leasing business. Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition of this case is lawful, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

① With respect to the new construction and sale of the instant ○○ building (in addition to the instant building, ○○ building, ○○ building, and GG building) in the instant ○5 housing site zone, the Plaintiff entered into a joint management agreement with ○○○○, AAA Construction, and CCC on 200, and acquired ○% of the shares in AA Construction in the Plaintiff’s name. However, there are no grounds to deem the CCC to have managed or controlled the income or income through the sale or lease of the instant building.

② CCC sold the instant land from the Korea Land and Housing Corporation on 200. ○○○○○○○○○, and paid down payment. On 200, the Plaintiff sold the instant land to the Plaintiff on ○○○○. On 200, the Plaintiff and CCC submitted an application for change of name to the Korea Land and Housing Corporation on 00. 20, and the Plaintiff transferred ○○○ to the Plaintiff ○○○ on 200, the Plaintiff transferred 130% of the right to claim the return of the purchase price of the land upon cancellation of the land sales contract on 200. 30% of the loan amount.

③ With respect to the transfer of the instant land to the Plaintiff, CCC and DD entered into an investigation as a witness in relation to the Plaintiff’s violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, and stated that “The FF FF’s husband, the Plaintiff’s husband, entered into a sales contract for the instant land under the name of CCC on the ground that “the FF’s husband, who was the Plaintiff’s husband, would take the place to receive the pre-sale price,” and that “the sales contract for the instant land was entered into under the name of CCC on the ground that the Plaintiff did not think of whether the building was registered in the name of CCC, and later

④ At the time of purchase of the instant land from CCC, the Plaintiff prepared a real estate sales contract directly with her husband FF and CCC, and reported the real transaction price of the instant land to ○○○○○ Office. The Korea Land and Housing Corporation directly visited her husband to prepare a land transfer contract, a written request for notification of assignment of assignment and consent, a request for change of name, etc. In addition, the Plaintiff prepared and submitted an application for registration of business registration under the name of the Plaintiff on 00.0.0 and submitted the Plaintiff’s name with the location of the instant land. After the instant building was newly constructed on the instant land, the Plaintiff was granted a loan from HH association on 2000 to pay AA construction cost, and entered into the instant mortgage contract with the maximum debt amount ○○○○. The said mortgage contract was also drafted directly, and the value-added tax was paid with additional loans from HH Article at the time of payment of value-added tax on 200.

⑤ The Plaintiff initially responded to the purport that the preparation of a real estate sales contract, change of name, mortgage contract, and application for registration of business registration, etc. are not timely made and well-known. Upon presenting documents, the Plaintiff changed the Plaintiff’s statement that he/she was written by her husband with her husband and her husband’s delivery. However, in light of the contents of the above paragraph (4), it is difficult to readily believe the Plaintiff’s statement as above.

④ Since the name of the instant land was changed to the Plaintiff, most of the sale price was deposited into the account in the name of the Plaintiff, and the said price was used as payment, etc. of the construction price. The Plaintiff completed the registration of preservation of ownership of the instant building in the name of the Plaintiff, and FF paid in kind for the construction price to the subordinate companies of AAA Construction among the instant buildings, which were unsold in lots, around early 200, 200, and FF paid in kind for the construction price to the subordinate companies of AA Construction, and directly prepared for the transfer and takeover of the relevant bonds.

7) As a result of the investigation of a tax offense case regarding the instant building, it was revealed that the Plaintiff and the actual offender FF received the aggregate of the false tax invoices from February 2, 200 to January 200, and thus, imposed a disposition of notice on the Plaintiff and FF under Articles 20 and 22 of the former Value-Added Tax Act in violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, and Article 10(2)2 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, and the Plaintiff fulfilled the disposition of notice under the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.

8) Meanwhile, the fact that the DD was punished for violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act is acknowledged, but it is not related to the name lending of the instant building, which is related to the GG building, other than the instant building.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.