Whether the estimation of value-added tax on purchase of non-data is lawful

It is illegal to correct the estimation of value-added tax without taking the procedure of the field investigation, but if it is evident that the tax base and tax amount cannot be determined even if the field investigation is conducted, it cannot be viewed as illegal even if the estimation revision

Article 21 (Rectification and Determination)

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's imposition of value-added tax against the plaintiff on January 18, 2005 in the amount exceeding 1,935,710 won for the second term of February 1999, and 2,214,90 won for the second term of February 2000, and the imposition of KRW 1,996,340 for the first term of January 200, respectively, and the imposition of KRW 1,935,830 for the first term of January 200 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts may be acknowledged, either in dispute between the parties or in accordance with Gap evidence Nos. 5, 15 through 18, and Eul evidence No. 1-1, and in full view of the purport of all pleadings:

A. (1) Between November 10, 1993 and February 2, 2001, the Plaintiff engaged in miscellaneous wholesale business, such as household equipment, in the trade name of 000 00 - 00 - 000 - 000 - to 00 - 00 - (hereinafter “00 -”). On February 2, 2001, the Plaintiff established a company of 000 - and runs miscellaneous wholesale and retail business at the same place.

(2) On May 26, 199, the Plaintiff was supplied 00 square meters from May 26, 199 to February 8, 2002 with the trade name of “0 industry”, which is “0 industry.”

B. On January 18, 2005, the defendant purchased the following amount from 00 to hereinafter "the purchase amount of damages for damages" (hereinafter referred to as "the purchase amount for damages") from 00 to 'the purchase amount for damages' as non-materials. Since there is no tax invoice, account books, or other evidence to calculate the sales tax base or there is no significant part of it, the defendant calculated the total profit ratio (15.7% in 1999, 17.42% in 2000) by applying the total profit ratio (1%) to 'the estimated sales amount for damages for damages' (1%) as the estimated sales amount, and then the defendant calculated the amount stated in 'the estimated sales amount for damages for damages' as the tax base and imposed the value-added tax (including additional tax) as stated in 'the notified tax amount' (hereinafter referred to as "the disposition in this case").

Taxation Period

Compensation for Loss

Purchase Price

Individual Distribution Estimated Amount

Righter

Sales amount

(4)

Additional Tax

(5)

Notice Tax Amount

non-higher

199

2 Initials

7,779,800

9,238,576 won

923,857 won

929,861 won

1,853,710 won

hereinafter referred to as "the second disposition" in 99.

200

1. Initials

8,606,545 won

10,422,069 won

1,042,206 won

954,138 won

1,996,340 won

hereinafter referred to as "the first disposition" in 00.

200

2 Initials

10,030,545 won

12,146,457 won

1,214,645 won

1,000,259 won

2,214,900 won

hereinafter referred to as "the second disposition" in 00.

[Attachment 1]

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

[Attachment 1] The entry is as follows.

B. Relevant statutes

(Attachment 2) The entry is as shown in [Attachment 2].

C. Facts

In addition to the above evidence evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 6 through 14, 19 through 21, Eul evidence No. 1-2, Eul evidence No. 2, Eul evidence No. 3-1, Eul evidence No. 4, and witness No. 100, the following facts are acknowledged:

(1) From April 20, 200 to April 20, the Plaintiff operated 00 companies with the business operator’s name as its own. However, from that to October 31 of the same year, the Plaintiff operated the above company in the name of 00 accounting personnel, and from that to February 2, 2001, in the name of 00 business managers from that to February 2, 2001.

(2) (A) Upon filing a value-added tax return for the second half of 1999, the Plaintiff reported that there remains a stock of the total amount of KRW 4,805,00 (including value-added tax) equivalent to the total amount of KRW 4,805,00 (including two hundreds), and when filing each value-added tax return for the same period and for the second half of 2000, the Plaintiff reported sales on the basis of each tax invoice listed below [Attachment 2] (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”).

[Attachment 2]

Suppliers

Persons who receive the goods

Date of Preparation

Items

Value of Supply

Trade Name

Name

Trade Name

Name

00 Industries

west 00

00 Commercial

July 6, 1999

Water play equipment other than oil play equipment

1,328,800 won

00 Industries

west 00

00 Commercial

August 3, 1999

Water play equipment other than water play equipment

2,337,500 won

00 Industries

west 00

00 Commercial

Man 00

July 31, 2000

police officer:

2,300,000 won

00 Industries

west 00

00 Commercial

Man 00

August 31, 200

police officer:

2,700,000 won

(B) On the other hand, the Plaintiff submitted a list of total tax invoices on a company-type distributor as sales data of each of the above value-added tax return.

(3) (A) On February 2003, the Plaintiff informed the Plaintiff that the total value of KRW 57,953,220, which was entered in the trading statement in Chapter 17, including the trading statement in May 26, 199, prepared between the Plaintiff and Seo 00 on the 00 Tax Office, was the transaction without any data for which the tax invoice, etc. was not issued.

(B) Accordingly, the director of the tax office imposed value-added tax on the omitted sales amount to 00, and 00 paid that amount.

(4) (A) The statement of this case constitutes the whole transaction made between the Plaintiff and Seo 00 from 1999 to 2000. Among them, the details of each transaction statement made between July 199 and May 2000 to 8 of the same year are as shown in [Attachment 3].

(B) When supplying the Plaintiff with the number, etc. indicated in the specification of the instant transaction, 00, upon the Plaintiff’s request, the goods sent directly to the phrases stores, athletes, etc. (not stated in the list of the total tax invoices under paragraph (2) of the above Article) indicated in the item column of the said specification, upon the Plaintiff’s request, and the Plaintiff issued the goods invoice, such as the transportation invoice, etc. to the Plaintiff. After confirmation, the Plaintiff entered the above specification as the date of the initial order, and the goods were delivered to the Plaintiff’s customer since the following day after delivery of the goods to the Plaintiff.

(5) On the other hand, the transaction account book stating the details of transactions, such as the waterway supplied to the Plaintiff by the Seo 00 (○○ District Court 2003Gais 00000, which was filed against the Plaintiff) is consistent with the contents of the instant transaction account statement, and the Plaintiff returned 4,551,520 won to 00 on April 14, 2001.

D. Determination

(1) Determination on the argument in Section 1. of [Attachment 1]

(A) Article 21(1)2 and Article 21(2)1 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7007 of Dec. 30, 2003; hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) provides that where the tax base and tax amount are corrected due to an error or omission in the details of the final tax return, if there is no tax invoice, account book, or other evidence necessary for calculating the tax base, or if the material part is incomplete, the estimated correction may be made under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree.

(B) In the event that tax invoices, account books, and other evidence submitted by a taxpayer upon filing a tax base return and tax amount are deemed to be unfaithful, the tax authority shall point out the illegality and conduct a field investigation by receiving new data, and even if based on such data, the tax base and tax amount should be determined only when the taxpayer is unable to determine the tax base and tax amount, and the taxation by the decision on the estimation investigation without taking such procedures is illegal as satisfying the requirements for the estimation taxation. However, in light of the fact that the reasons for taking such procedures are exceptionally permitted when the decision on the estimation investigation cannot be made on the basis of the principle of the taxation on the basis of the principle of the taxation on the basis of the basis, the tax authority shall point out the illegality of the tax invoice, account books, and other evidence submitted by the taxpayer and rendered a tax disposition by the decision on the estimation investigation without taking such procedures and making it illegal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Du8293, Jul. 8, 2005).

(C) Comprehensively taking account of the content and legal principles of the relevant laws and regulations, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to submit data on whether to omit a report on the sales amount corresponding to the issue purchase amount, or received such data. However, the statement of this case submitted by the Plaintiff upon notifying the Plaintiff of the omission of sales amount by 00 stated that a considerable portion of the number of pages supplied to the pertinent transaction was sold to Seodaemun-gu and sports company, etc., and that such content is at a distance between the Plaintiff and the major distribution company, which is the list of the total tax invoices submitted by the Plaintiff upon the return of the relevant value-added tax (the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff delivered the tax invoice submitted by the major distribution company upon its request, as indicated in the statement No. 20 of the transaction statement of this case, after being ordered by the major distribution company, it is insufficient to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise). However, even if the Plaintiff did not submit the sales data on the above phrases, sports company, etc. from the date of the above information to the original trial, it cannot be viewed that the Defendant’s sales amount of this case was unlawful.

(2) Determination on the argument in Section 2. of [Attachment 1]

(A) As to the claim for the deduction under subsection (1)

1) Article 9(1) of the Act provides, with respect to the time of supply of goods, the time when the goods are delivered or delivered (Article 1(1)), when the goods are made available if the transfer of goods is not required (Article 1(1)); and the time when the goods are made available if the provisions of subparagraphs 1 and 2 cannot be applied (Article 1(2).

(ii)The details of these relevant laws and regulations are indicated in the Health Center and the trading date of July 3, 199 as of June 30 of the same year in light of the facts of pin, but since this is the case where the transfer of goods is necessary, the time when the goods are delivered to the sales office requested by the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 9, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Act shall be deemed the time of supply. As seen earlier, the above goods are delivered to the Plaintiff’s customer after the following day after delivery of 00 on cargo or on their own. Thus, the time of supply shall be deemed to be the date of July 3, 1999, or even if not, after that date, the time of supply on the 1st of the same month.

Even if the transaction made on June 30, 199 by the Plaintiff on June 30, 199 falls under the first day of 199, according to the main contents of the transaction statement of this case (attached Form 3), the main contents of the transaction statement of this case are as follows: (a) even though the transaction made on June 30, 1999 except for the transaction made on June 30, 199, the supply price for the second term portion of 199 exceeds KRW 7,779,800 out of the purchase amount for the second term portion of 199. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s above part of the claim is without merit.

(B) As to the claim for deduction under subsection (1)(2)

In full view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be seen that the supply price under the tax invoice of this case is included in the purchase price, and the input tax amount is not deducted from the output tax amount, considering the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff already supplied the numbers of the tax invoices, based on each tax invoice of this case, etc. listed above [Attachment 2] at the time of the return of value-added tax in 199 and 2000; (b) the Plaintiff obtained input tax deduction as to the input tax amount by withdrawing the materials that had already been supplied to a serious-type distributor; and (c) the transaction statement of this case was sold in terms of a significant number of items, such as a word store and a sports company, etc.; and (d) the transaction statement of this case is inconsistent with the entry of the above tax invoice, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the contents of the tax invoice of this case are different from the facts, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion

(C) As to its claim for deduction under subsection (3)

As seen above, the Plaintiff reported that there remains a stock equivalent to KRW 4,805,00 in total amount of KRW 850 in the two months of the Value-Added Tax Return for the second year of 1999, and KRW 350 in the total of KRW 4,805,00, but there is no evidence to deem that such a stock was purchased during the second period of 199, this part of the assertion is without merit.

(3) Judgment on the argument in Section 3.3 of [Attachment 1]

According to the testimony of 100 witnesses of the trial room, the plaintiff cited three tax notice of the disposition of this case as of January 2005 and requested 100, a person in charge of Suwon tax affairs, and requested her refund, and the remaining goods at the time of closure are stored in and connected to a warehouse located in 000 e.g., 00 e., the remaining goods at the time of closure. The 100 note "stock, inspection, and storage of the e.g., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the remaining goods., the e.

(4) The theory of lawsuit

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit, and the method of calculating the tax amount that the plaintiff seeks revocation is also not reasonable, and the prior defendant's disposition is legitimate on the same premise.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.