The propriety of a disposition that deducts input tax in respect of processing transactions and excludes necessary expenses

Even if it was revealed that the tax invoice received is not a true issue in accordance with the actual transaction details, the burden of proof in good faith that the transaction partner did not know that the transaction partner was a disguised business operator, and that the claimant should bear the burden of proof.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Article 27 (Calculation of Necessary Expenses) of the Income Tax Act

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of value-added tax against the Plaintiff on August 1, 2005 is revoked, respectively, of the second term portion 2,582,10 won for the year 201, the first term portion 2,978,950 won for the year 2002, the first term portion 3,291,280 won for the year 202, the first term portion 2,241,830 won for the year 203, the second term portion 265,040 won for the year 203, the second term portion 265,040 won for the year 201, the amount reverted to 5,186,530 won for the year 201, the amount reverted to 11,987,900 won for the year 202, the amount reverted to 4,230,840 won for the year 203.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From October 6, 1999, the Plaintiff is an individual entrepreneur who has run a dynasium with the trade name of ○○○○○○○○○○○-○○○○ from ○○○○○○○○○ (Gu ○○○○○).

B. The Plaintiff filed a report with the Defendant on the second term value-added tax for the year 2003 from the second term portion in 2001, and global income tax for the year 2001 to 2003. The Plaintiff received the purchase tax invoice for the second term portion in 2001 from ○○ Unemployment Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○ Unemployment”) and from ○○ Alcoholic Beverages (hereinafter “○○ Alcoholic Beverages”), and filed a report on the amount of global income tax for each taxable year after 17,228,000, January 17, 2002, 17,008,000, February 19, 2002, 19,834,000, 15,772,000 won for each taxable year, and 1,940,000 won for each taxable year, and filed a report on the amount of global income tax deduction for each taxable year.

C. However, as a result of the investigation of tracking the distribution process of ○○○○ Commissioner of the National Tax Service on the alcoholic beverages, the Defendant received the instant tax invoice from the name of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, not the title of ○○○○○○○○○, even if the Plaintiff actually engaged in an alcoholic beverage transaction, and most of them were notified of the taxation data on disguised and fictitious transaction. Accordingly, on August 1, 2005, the Defendant issued the Plaintiff a revised and imposed the value-added tax for each corresponding taxable year by adding the additional tax to the amount calculated by not deducting the amount equivalent to the instant tax invoice as the input tax amount, as indicated in the list of the global income tax calculation statement (hereinafter referred to as “the disposition imposing the global income tax and global income tax”) by deducting the amount calculated by including the amount equivalent to the amount of the instant tax invoice in the necessary expenses for the pertinent taxable year as indicated in the global income tax calculation statement, and deducting the amount of the previously paid tax amount from the global income tax amount (hereinafter referred to as “the disposition imposing the instant tax imposition”).

Table of calculation of value-added tax (unit: Won)

Amount of taxation period

Details of correction

(1) Purchase tax invoices.

Aggregate:

(2) An input tax amount.

(1) X 10%

(3) Additional tax.

(4) The notified tax amount.

(B+3)

For the second period of 2001

14,018,000

1,401,800

1,180,315

2,582,115

For the first term, 2002

17,008,000

1,700,800

1,278,151

2,978,951

For the second period, 2002

19,833,000

1,983,300

1,307,986

3,291,286

For the first term, 2003

15,772,000

1,577,200

664,632

2,241,832

For the second period, 2003

1,940,000

194,000

71,042

265,042

(unit: won) of the global income tax calculation table.

Tax year

Original Contents

Details of correction

Notice Tax Amount

p. v. ＋ 6

- -)

(1) Global income.

Amount

(2) Income.

Mutual Aid

(3) Payment.

Amount of tax

(4) Necessary expenses

Denial Amount

(5) Global income.

Amount

(1) + 4)

(5) Calculated tax amount.

No. 55(1)(2) X

Tax Rate

(6) Additional tax.

201 Reversion of year 200

16,712,502

1,600,000

1,874,504

14.018.00

30.730.502

4.826.100

2.234.934

5,186,530

202 Reversion of year 2002

24,994,053

3,299,600

2,739,492

36.841.00

61.835.053

1.304.572

3.422.827

11,987,907

203 Reversion of year 2003

14,779,807

2,600,000

1,163,129

17.712.00

32.491.807

4.80.525

913.44

4,230,840

* Each notified tax amount will be less than 00 won out of the amount calculated according to each calculation method.

D. On December 20, 2005, the Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an objection on August 31, 2005, filed a request with the National Tax Tribunal for review on December 20, 2005, but was dismissed on June 1, 2006.

Facts without dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 1 to 8, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1 to 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The Defendant issued the instant tax invoice, which the Plaintiff received from ○○ Unemployment and ○ Alcoholic Beverages, on the ground that the instant tax invoice was issued differently from the facts. However, since ○○○ is an employee of ○○ Unemployment or ○○ Alcoholic Beverages, the Plaintiff was issued the instant tax invoice in direct transaction with ○○ Unemployment and ○ Alcoholic Beverages.

(2) Even if the instant tax invoice was issued differently from the facts on the ground that ○○○○ is not an employee of ○○ unemployment and ○○ Alcoholic Beverages, the Plaintiff is a bona fide business operator who is believed to be the head of ○○○○’s business, and thus, received the instant tax invoice, and accordingly, the amount equivalent to the instant tax invoice should be deducted as the input tax amount when calculating the value-added tax, and should be included in the necessary expenses when calculating global income tax

(3) Although the above arguments are not accepted in entirety, the Plaintiff actually purchased alcoholic beverages equivalent to the amount of money corresponding to the instant tax invoice from ○○○○, and thus, at least the amount equivalent to the instant tax invoice should be included in the necessary expenses when calculating global income tax.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) The representative of the company at ○○○○○○○○-dong ○○○○○○○, and the representative of the company at ○○○○○○○-dong ○○○○○○○○, which is adjacent to ○○○○○○○, is Kim○, while Kim○ and Kim○○ used the ○○○-dong ○○○ as a father’s vice versa.

(2) The National Tax Service’s ○○○○○○○ Tax Service from August 17, 2004 to October 14, 2004

As a result, it was confirmed that all of the transaction partners except for about 200 direct transaction partners among the sales of the above company sold to the ○○-dong intermediary, and issued a false tax invoice after comparing the sales of the actual account book and the sales of alcoholic beverages by transaction partner at the time of reporting value-added tax with the list of tax invoices by transaction partner at the time of reporting the sales of the above company's office. As a result, ○○○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 2,242, 34.3 billion won, 2,831, 37.3 billion won, ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○.

set forth in the evidence of subparagraphs 10 through 20 and the purport of the whole pleadings.

D. Determination

(1) Whether a tax invoice has been issued differently from the fact

(A) According to the above facts, since ○○○○ who supplied the Plaintiff’s alcoholic beverages is not an employee of ○○ Unemployment or ○○ Alcoholic Beverages, but an unlicensed alcoholic beverage dealer responsible for all transactions, such as acquiring alcoholic beverages from ○○ Unemployment and ○○ Alcoholic Beverages and selling them to his fixed transaction office, it cannot be deemed that the instant tax invoice was issued in a genuine manner according to the actual transaction details.

(B) However, even though it was revealed that the tax invoice received by the business owner after the investigation by the related agency was determined as the nominal nominal business owner due to the investigation by the plaintiff, and the transaction partner did not know the fact that the transaction partner was a disguised business owner and did not know the fact that the transaction partner was a disguised business owner, the input tax amount should be deducted even if the transaction partner was a supplier. However, in this case, the plaintiff must prove that the transaction partner was a bona fide business owner. However, in this case, the plaintiff's proof of the plaintiff's submission No. 3 is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff was a bona fide business owner, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion that he was a bona fide business owner is also without merit.

(2) Whether a substantial amount of the instant tax invoice was actually paid

(A) In light of the principle of substantial taxation under Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, even if a tax invoice submitted by a taxpayer is found to be false, if the amount equivalent to the false tax invoice is actually paid, it shall be deemed that it may be included in the necessary expenses when calculating global income tax. However, as to whether the tax invoice was actually traded and the amount equivalent to the tax invoice was actually paid, the Plaintiff should prove this.

(B) However, in light of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff did not submit the data on purchase and sales account books to support the actual transaction facts other than the account details linked to the certificate sales account No. 5, and it is insufficient to recognize that the certificate No. 5 alone did not have the actual transaction equivalent to the tax invoice of this case, or that the equivalent amount was actually paid, and there is no other evidence to support this.

(C) According to the above evidence and evidence evidence evidence Nos. 5 and evidence No. 5, the amount settled from the above account at the second time of 2001 is merely 5,596,300 won. The purchase tax invoice amount reported by the Plaintiff at the time was 14,018,000 won, there is no evidence suggesting that the remaining amount was paid in cash, but there is no evidence suggesting that the remaining amount was paid in cash. Since January 2002, the amount settled from the above account increased by 3 times or more during the period of 17,06,90 won, and 21,818,000 won on February 2, 200, 17,35,200 won, and 2,135,000 won on January 2, 2003, and 2000 won on account under the above account, but it did not show that the Plaintiff deposited the above account in the above account in the name of the Plaintiff at the latest KRW 105,00.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the defendant's disposition of this case is legitimate, and the plaintiff's claim seeking revocation is rejected as it is without merit.