Whether additional taxation on similar gasoline manufacturers based on statements made by investigative agencies is legitimate

The method of calculating the tax base by calculating the total manufacturing and sales of similar gasoline based on the period of manufacturing, frequency of manufacturing, and quantity per time of manufacturing, which is deemed to be at least within the scope stated by the investigation agency, shall reflect the actual amount close to the truth.

Article 2 of the Traffic Tax Act

Article 3 of the Traffic Tax Act

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On April 18, 2007, the Defendant revoked the traffic tax of 25,164,260 won and education tax of 3,532,032 won and education tax of 3,605,240 won and education tax of 24,605,240 won and education tax of 3,471,60 won and education tax of 24,343,280 won and education tax of 24,160,230 won and education tax of 24,160,230 won and education tax of 206.9, the traffic tax of 206.9, and 3,471,60 won and education tax of 23,970,870 won and education tax of 3,471,600 won and education tax of 206.10 won and the value-added tax of 3,01,71,208 won for 206, respectively.

1. Circumstances of dispositions;

A. After the Plaintiff conspired to manufacture and sell pseudo petroleum with the maximum ○ line and the new ○○ line from April 2006 to October 25, 2006, the Plaintiff was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act, etc. on December 18, 2006 from around October 2006 to around 443-O of Kimpo-si, ○○○○○○-ri, installed a vinyl-type warehouse, and installed a mixture of 5,00 liters capacity and compressed instruments, etc. necessary for manufacturing pseudo petroleum and supplied them for sale. The Plaintiff was indicted for a crime of manufacturing and selling pseudo petroleum products of approximately 360,000 litrespos by mixing lus, tactenenen, and methyl alcohol, and the judgment was finalized on February 15, 2007 by the appellate court and the judgment became final and conclusive on February 237, 2007.

B. The Defendant: (a) notified the Plaintiff of the above criminal facts by the head of Kimpo Police Station; (b) from around June 2006 to October 25, 2006, the Plaintiff manufactured 5,000 liters from around June 2006 to twice a week; and (c) based on the Plaintiff’s statement that he manufactured and sold 5,00 liters at each time of manufacture, the number of similar gasolines is 20,000 liters; (b) calculated the Plaintiff’s 25,164,260 won as traffic tax on June 18, 2007; and (c), 3,531,030 won as education tax on 3,531,030 won as above; (d) traffic tax on 24,605,240 won as well as 3,471,471,400 won as traffic tax on 7,206; and (d) 36,3036,364,27 won as well.

C. On May 14, 2007, the plaintiff tried to the National Tax Tribunal. On November 19, 2007, the National Tax Tribunal decided that the tax base is the amount calculated by deducting 0.5%, which is the natural decrease rate of gasoline, from the amount when the gasoline was taken out of the manufacturing place, from the amount when the similar gasoline was taken out of the manufacturing place. The remaining claims are dismissed. Accordingly, the defendant applied the natural decrease rate of 0.5% to the amount of similar gasoline manufactured at the manufacturing place. On December 4, 2007, the tax base was reduced by 0.5%, and the traffic tax was imposed at 183,313, education tax, 17,687, 239, 17, 17, 358, value-added tax reduction, 17, 38, 206, 207, 367, 18, 206, 367, 278, 276, 167, 36.7.1.7

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 and 2 Eul evidence 1 to 10, Eul evidence 2-1 to 2-4, Eul evidence 3-1, 11, and 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The taxpayer under the Traffic Tax Act is a person who manufactures and takes out oil for sale in an independent position. The taxpayer under the Value-Added Tax Act is an independent supplier of goods or services. The Plaintiff provided labor related to the manufacturing of the similar gasoline in this case by receiving a certain amount of wages from new criminals. The Plaintiff is not a person liable for traffic tax, education tax, and value-added tax, since it is not a person liable for traffic tax, education

(2) In imposing the instant taxation, the Defendant calculated the tax base by estimation method based on the Plaintiff’s dependence only on the Plaintiff’s statement made by the investigative agency in the criminal proceedings against the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff’s statement made by investigative agency was incidental to the Plaintiff’s investigation agency in the course of investigating whether the Plaintiff violated the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act, and thus, the Defendant’s tax base determination based only on the statement was unlawful as it lacks objectivity and credibility.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 2 of the Traffic Tax Act

Article 3 of the Traffic Tax Act

Article 4 of the Traffic Tax Act

Article 5 of the Traffic Tax Act

Article 6 of the Traffic Tax Act

Article 9 of the Traffic Tax Act

C. Determination

(1) First of all, the plaintiff is obligated to pay traffic tax. Article 2(1)1 and Article 3 of the Traffic Tax Act provides that the person who manufactures and takes out gasoline and substitute oil similar thereto shall be liable to pay traffic tax. Articles 3 subparag. 3 and 5(1)3 of the former Education Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8137 of Dec. 30, 2006) provides that the taxpayer of traffic tax under the provisions of the Traffic Tax Act shall pay education tax (15/100 of the traffic tax). Article 2(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that the plaintiff shall pay the value-added tax independently for business purposes, regardless of whether the plaintiff is liable to pay the value-added tax. Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that the plaintiff is not liable to pay the value-added tax on the newly constructed gasoline at the 0th of 6th of 0th of 6th of 6th of 6th of 6th of 6th of 6th of 20th of 24th of 204th of the new gasoline.

(2) Next, the argument that the determination of the tax base of this case based on the estimation method is unlawful due to lack of objectivity and credibility should be based on the actual amount revealed by the field investigation method, and in order to determine the tax base and tax amount of traffic tax and value-added tax based on the estimation method, it shall be exceptionally allowed only when there is no taxpayer’s account books or documentary evidence, etc. or when there is no other method that the tax authorities can disclose the actual amount of income without credibility because the important part of the decision is insufficient or false (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du915, Oct. 8, 199). In such estimation, if it is reasonably and reasonably calculated to reflect the actual amount close to the truth in the method and content of the estimation by the method provided in each subparagraph of Article 69(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, it shall be legitimate.

With respect to this case, the Plaintiff did not have any other documents, such as account books or tax invoices on the manufacturing and sales of similar gasoline in this case. The Plaintiff was investigated by an investigation agency on the facts of manufacturing and selling similar gasoline in this case on May 2006. From June 25, 2006 to October 25, 2006, the Plaintiff stated that he manufactured similar gasoline in this case twice a week and 5,000 liters every time of production. The Defendant calculated the Plaintiff’s similar gasoline manufacturing period as 20,000, which is most favorable to the Plaintiff based on the prosecutor’s examination protocol against the Plaintiff, and calculated the Plaintiff’s similar gasoline manufacturing quantity as 20,000,00 liters, and thereafter, calculated the amount of the Plaintiff’s similar gasoline manufacturing quantity as 10,000,000,0000 of the value-added Tax Act based on the determination of the National Tax Tribunal on November 19, 2007 to reflect the amount of the Plaintiff’s tax base in this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit, and it is decided as per Disposition by the court below.