logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
청구법인이 지입차주의 위탁을 받아 청구법인 명의로 매입한 차량의 공급시기가 언제인지 여부(기각)
조세심판원 조세심판 | 1998-12-16 | 국심1998중0897 | 부가
[Case Number]

National High Court 1998J 0897 ( December 17, 1998)

[Items]

Addition

[Types of Decision]

Dismissal

[Summary of Decision]

Since a vehicle is delivered to a local owner on the date of shipment, the applicant corporation should issue a tax invoice for the vehicle to the local owner at the time of supply and have reported the value-added tax by selling the vehicle during the period of the value-added tax for the 1st taxable year in 97 to which the date of delivery of the vehicle belongs; however, the disposition that the disposition agency corrected the value-added tax without refunding the tax amount is legitimate.

[Related Acts]

Article 6 of the Value-Added Tax Act

【Disposition】

I dismiss the appeal.

【Reasoning】

1. Summary of the original disposition;

During the 97.1 period (from April to June 97), the applicant corporation purchased the 11 unit of the cargo vehicle (hereinafter referred to as "influence vehicle") from the applicant corporation in the name of the manufacturer of the vehicle, and received the purchase tax invoice (the supply price of KRW 402,296,234, the tax amount of KRW 40,229,618) from the manufacturer of the vehicle, and applied for the input tax deduction (the refund) at the time of the return of the value-added tax return for the first period of January 97.

The disposition agency conducted a value-added tax investigation and confirmed that the vehicle is a branch entry vehicle, and usually purchased a unit entry vehicle under the name of the branch entry company, but delivered it to the branch entry owner at the same time, and thus, did not report it to be sold during the same taxation period, but did not comply with the supply price (402,866,234 won, including the branch entry fee 570,000 won) for the main vehicle, and corrected the value-added tax base for the first period of October 18, 97 for the main vehicle by 515,24,419 won by 51,524,419 won (the refund after deducting the output tax amount from the expected amount to be refunded).

The applicant filed a request for trial on Apr. 14, 98 after the request for review on Dec. 16, 97.

2. Opinions of the applicant and the Commissioner of the National Tax Service;

(a) Request;

Since the claimant corporation purchased the key vehicle at the intention to operate the original direct management system, it naturally did not occur at the same time as the purchase of the vehicle at issue, and it was inevitable to convert it into the direct management and the sub-resident system due to failure to secure the quantity, while investigating the value-added tax, the disposition agency inevitably issued the sales tax invoice at the same time as the purchase (delivery) of the vehicle at issue and did not report the output tax amount despite the actual owner of the vehicle at issue, and issued the sales tax invoice at the same time, and issued the sales tax invoice at the same time, and corrected the value-added tax due to omission in sales. However, in order to substantially operate the vehicle after the delivery of the key vehicle, it is possible to operate the vehicle in order to register the vehicle and complete the automobile insurance procedure, so the execution date of the above entrusted management contract between the claimant corporation and the sub-contractor, which is the transfer date of the right to use and benefit from the vehicle, was the date of the purchase of the vehicle at issue at the time of the time of the sale of the vehicle at issue.

(b) Opinions of the Commissioner of the National Tax Service;

The applicant corporation has obtained a license for the automobile transport business under Article 4 of the Automobile Transport Business Act and stipulated that the name of the applicant corporation shall be prohibited from lending to another person under Article 26 of the same Act, but it is confirmed that the owner of the vehicle only purchased or registered the vehicle under the name of the applicant corporation with the license for the automobile transport business in order to carry on the automobile transport business, in light of the fact that the owner of the vehicle starts with the automobile sales contract and actually bears the automobile purchase-price and various kinds of tax and public charges, the owner of the vehicle is the owner of the vehicle. Since the vehicle is delivered to the owner of the vehicle immediately after the purchase from the manufacturer of the vehicle, the time of delivery of the vehicle is deemed the time of delivery of the vehicle, and the applicant corporation should issue the tax invoice to the owner of the vehicle at the same time when the tax invoice is delivered from the manufacturer of the vehicle, or did not issue the tax invoice, and thus there was no error in

3. Hearing and determination

A. Key issue

The time of supply for the key vehicle purchased in the name of the claimant corporation by the entrustment of the owner of the land.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 6 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "the supply of goods shall be a delivery or transfer of goods on all contractual or legal grounds." Paragraph (2) of the same Article provides that "The delivery of goods shall be deemed to be a delivery or transfer of goods on consignment or by an agent: Provided, That the same shall not apply where the truster or the principal is not known, while the consignor or the principal cannot be identified."

The main sentence of Article 9(1) of the same Act provides that "the time when goods are supplied shall be the time prescribed in any of the following subparagraphs," and subparagraph 1 of the same Article provides that "the time when the goods are delivered if the transfer of goods is required:"

Meanwhile, when an entrepreneur registered as a taxpayer supplies goods or services, an invoice stating the following matters (hereinafter referred to as "tax invoice") at the time prescribed in Article 9 shall be delivered to the recipient of the supply as prescribed by the Presidential Decree: Provided, That the time of delivery may vary in cases prescribed by the Presidential Decree:

1. Registration number, name or denomination of the businessman who provides;

2. Registration number of the person who receives;

3. Supply value and value-added tax;

4. Date of preparation.

5. Provisions of "matters prescribed by Presidential Decree other than those of subparagraphs 1 through 4", and

Article 21 (1) of the same Act provides, “The head of a tax office having jurisdiction over a place of business shall correct the tax base of value-added tax or the amount of tax payable for the taxable period in the case of failure to make a final tax return or errors or omissions in details of the final tax return.”

In addition, Article 26 (1) of the Automobile Transport Business Act provides that "A motor vehicle transport business operator shall not have another motor vehicle transport business operator or a person who has not obtained a license or registration for the motor vehicle transport business operate the motor vehicle transport business by using all or part of the motor vehicle for consideration or without consideration. In this case, the same shall apply where a motor vehicle transport business operator gives instructions related to the business concerned to another motor vehicle transport business operator or a person who has not obtained a license or registration for another motor

C. Facts and determination

(1) We examine the instant facts.

(A) The transaction date and supply value on the purchase tax invoice for the key vehicle received by the applicant corporation and the terms of the consignment contract under the above consignment contract concluded between the applicant corporation and the borrower are as follows.

(unit: Won)

Vehicle Number

Date of transaction

Value of Supply

Value-Added Tax

Beneficiary and Beneficiary and Beneficiary

Entrustment Contract Date

OOOOOOO

97.4

49,227,274

4,922,727

OO

97.7.1

OOOOOOO

97.4.11

7,400,910

740,091

OO

97.9.27

OOOOOOO

97.5.22

49,227,274

4,922,727

OO

97.7.11

OOOOOOO

97.6.2

49,227,274

4,922,727

OO

97.8.9

OOOOOOO

97.5.31

9,591,819

959,181

OO

97.9.29

OOOOOOO

97.6.23

78,181,819

7,818,181

OO

97.7.15

OOOOOOO

97.6.28

35,545,455

3,554,545

OO

97.7.10

OOOOOOO

97.6.26

35,545,455

3,554,545

OO

97.7.11

OOOOOOO

97.6.26

35,545,455

3,554,545

OO

97.7.9

OOOOOOO

97.6.30

32,803,499

3,280,349

OO

97.7.13

OOOOOOO

97.6.26

20,000,000

2,000,000

OO

97.7.15

Consolidateds

11

402,296,234

40,299,618

(B) According to the on-site verification survey, the agency in charge of the disposition shall consider the time when the vehicle is immediately purchased from the company manufacturing the vehicle, and at the same time the vehicle is purchased from the company requesting the purchase and sales of the vehicle, and at the same time the sales of the land is made at the same time, and it is justifiable to levy value-added tax on the omission of the sales of the vehicle at issue, on the other hand, on the ground that the vehicle was only purchased (tax deduction deduction deduction deduction deduction deduction deduction deduction) although the purchase report and the sales report are made at the same time, and it is justified to levy value-added tax on the omission of the sales of the vehicle at issue, on the other hand, on the ground that there is only a purchase report (tax deduction deduction deduction).

Since the first applicant corporation intended to operate the vehicle directly, the applicant corporation purchased the contract deposit and delivery money in the name of the applicant corporation by paying it to the vehicle manufacturing company, and some of them were directly converted into the temporary owner company because they failed to secure the volume of the cargo after purchasing the key vehicle, and the time when the applicant corporation supplied the key vehicle into the temporary three-dimensional system by concluding the entrustment management contract. Therefore, the time when the applicant corporation purchased the key vehicle from the vehicle manufacturing company, and the applicant corporation concludes the entrustment contract and delivers it, the time when the vehicle was supplied is not the time when the vehicle was purchased from the vehicle manufacturing company, but the applicant corporation concludes the entrustment contract and delivers it.

(2) According to the above facts, the time when the claimant corporation purchased the vehicle from the company for manufacturing the vehicle belongs to the taxable period of value-added tax in 97 and belongs to the two taxable periods of value-added tax in 97. The disposal agency imposed tax on the claimant corporation regarding the time when the vehicle was supplied to the owner company from the company for manufacturing the vehicle as the date when the claimant corporation purchased the vehicle from the company for manufacturing the vehicle for selling it. On the other hand, the claimant corporation claims that the delivery date of the vehicle is the date of the above consignment contract with the owner company and the requesting corporation, and the claim corporation claims the delivery date of the vehicle for selling it to the owner company, that is, the delivery date of the vehicle for selling the vehicle, and that is, the delivery date of the goods is the time when the requested corporation supplies the vehicle to the owner company, and the disposal agency corrected the value-added tax by considering the time when the vehicle was supplied and the sales declaration was omitted.

(A) According to the survey of the instant disposition agency, in light of the fact that the address of the person who received the installment payment notice under the automobile sales contract is indicated in the name of the land owner, and that the person who received the installment payment notice is actually responsible for the insurance premiums and various taxes and public charges for the key vehicles, etc., the pertinent vehicle is verified as the designated vehicle in the name of the requesting agency upon entrustment of the land owner at the time of purchase by the vehicle manufacturer. On the other hand, while the requesting agency asserted that the vehicle was purchased by the requesting agency to directly operate the key vehicle, although the requesting agency claimed that the vehicle had been transferred by the vehicle manufacturer and owned the vehicle, or that the requesting agency had operated the business by directly using the key vehicle before the transferring the key vehicle to the land owner, it is not clear that

If the claimant corporation has supplied the disputed vehicle to the borrower for a long time after acquiring the disputed vehicle and using it for a considerable period, it would normally be less than the value acquired by the branch company, unless there is any special reason. However, the value of supply in the tax invoice issued by the claimant corporation at the time of acquisition by the vehicle manufacturer company and the value of supply in the tax invoice issued by the claimant corporation to the branch owner on the date of conclusion of the entrustment management contract is shown to be the same.

In light of the fact that the Claimant did not obtain a license for the automobile transport business and that the Claimant did not purchase a directly disputed vehicle from the Claimant because the Claimant did not have a business registration at the time of the purchase of the key vehicles of the Claimant, it is reasonable to view the Respondent as the Claimant’s vehicle acquired under the name of the Claimant upon the entrustment of the Claimant from the beginning to the beginning, rather than the vehicle purchased from the intention under the direct management of the Claimant;

In light of the fact that a local government-invested vehicle entrusted by a local government-invested enterprise through a local government-invested enterprise is immediately delivered to a local government-invested enterprise, it is reasonable for the local government-invested enterprise to regard the vehicle as being delivered to the local government-invested enterprise on the delivery date of the vehicle at issue, and it is difficult to view that the local government-invested enterprise received the vehicle from the requesting corporation on the entrustment contract date for which the considerable period has elapsed from the delivery date

(B) The claimant corporation's assertion that the time of supply for the vehicle at issue should be the date of the above consignment management contract concluded between the claimant corporation and the branch owner, or that the above consignment management contract concluded between the claimant corporation and the branch owner shall be deemed the date of the above consignment management contract. The above consignment management contract concluded between the claimant corporation and the branch owner shall be deemed to be the date of delivery or supply to the branch owner, because the applicant corporation registered the business license of the applicant corporation which obtained a business license under the Automobile Transport Business Act and the vehicle entrusted by the branch owner in the name of the branch owner, and attached the registration number plate in the name of the applicant corporation to the vehicle and the management and operation of the branch owner by attaching the vehicle registration number plate in the name of the branch owner. It is not a contract related to the transfer or supply of ownership to the main vehicle. Thus, it shall not be deemed that the contract date of the above contract is the date of delivery or supply to the branch owner.

(C) In a case where a local government-invested company purchases a local government-invested vehicle on commission of a local government-invested person, the local government-invested company is required to issue a tax invoice under the proviso of Article 6(5) of the Value-Added Tax Act on the grounds that the local government-invested company will deliver the local government-invested vehicle at the same time as the delivery date of the vehicle to the local government-invested company under its own name, and that the local government-invested company shall deliver the tax invoice under its own name upon the delivery date of the vehicle

As seen above, since the vehicle at issue was delivered to a local owner on the date of shipment, the applicant corporation should have issued a tax invoice for the vehicle at issue to the local owner at the time of supply and reported the value-added tax by deeming that the vehicle at issue was sold to the local owner during the period of the imposition of the value-added tax in 97, which belongs to the date of shipment of the vehicle at issue. However, since the fact that the disposition agency has not reported, it is deemed that there was no error in the disposition that corrected the value

D. Accordingly, the appeal is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition in accordance with Articles 81 and 65(1)2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes.