No value-added tax shall be deemed included in the omitted sales

In light of the contents, motive, etc. of transactions without authentic documentation, the omission of sale in this case cannot be deemed to fall under “the case where the value of supply and the amount of tax are not indicated separately,” and there is no evidence to prove that there is a practice to regard “the price of supply, other than the value of supply” in the case of sale without authentic documentation, and thus a disposition that imposes tax on

Article 13 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2016Guhap22101 Disposition of revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

AA

00 Other 1

May 18, 2017

November 30, 2017

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

1. On April 1, 2016, Defendant BB head of the tax office revoked each disposition of KRW 4,009,842 out of KRW 21,586,49 of value-added tax (including additional tax), KRW 1,962,40 of KRW 40,456,640 of value-added tax (including additional tax) for a period of 20,456,640 of KRW 3,676,058 of value-added tax for a period of 1, 2011, and KRW 44,145,440 of value-added tax for a period of 1,2012 (including additional tax) (including additional tax).

2. On April 1, 2016, the imposition of KRW 9,003,228 of the global income tax of KRW 55,324,030 (including the additional tax), KRW 12,376,669 (including the additional tax), and global income tax of KRW 25,043,030 (including the additional tax) for the year 201, which was reverted to the Plaintiff on April 1, 2016, is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 원고는 2010. 3. 1.부터 2012. 6. 30.까지 00 00구 00로 381 (00동)에서 'ㅇㅇㅇㅇ주유소'(이하 '이 사건 사업장'이라 한다)를 운영하면서 GGG에게 경유와 등유 합계 518,561,505원(이하 '이 사건 매출누락금액'이라 한다) 상당을 매출세금계산서 교부 없이 무자료 판매하였다.

B. On April 1, 2016, the Defendants considered the omitted sales amount as the value of supply, and the head of the Defendant BB Tax Office imposed the Plaintiff the global income tax amount of KRW 21,586,490 for the first term of 2011, value-added tax of KRW 40,456,640 for the second term of 201, value-added tax of KRW 44,145,440 for the first term of 2012, and the head of the DefendantCC imposed the global income tax of KRW 55,324,030 for the first term of 201, and KRW 25,043,030 for the global income tax of KRW 20 for the year 201 (including above additional tax) (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant disposition”).

1) '4,145,141 won' appears to be a clerical error (see subparagraph 1-3, e.g., evidence).

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on June 24, 2016, which was pending in the instant lawsuit, but was dismissed on August 24, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's 1-4, 6, 8 evidence, Eul's 1-6 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Plaintiff decided not to receive value-added tax separately from the omitted sales amount in this case from GG, it constitutes a case where the omitted sales amount in this case includes or is unclear whether the value-added tax was included in the omitted sales amount. In addition, it is a tax practice to view that the value-added tax is included in the actual transaction of non-data transaction.

Therefore, pursuant to Article 29(7) of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 13-48-1 of the General Rule of the same Act, the amount calculated by multiplying the amount omitted sales of this case by 100/110 shall be deemed the value of supply. Nevertheless, the Defendant issued the instant disposition on the premise that the total omitted sales of this case is the value of supply.

B. Relevant statutes

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

C. Determination

(1) Whether the omitted sales amount of this case includes value added tax

(A) According to the former Value-Added Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 7, 2013; hereinafter omitted), the tax base of value-added tax on the supply of goods is the total amount of supply, including the price, in a case where the payment is made in money, and the value-added tax is excluded; and thus, if the amount received in return for the supply of goods is not included in the value-added tax, the price falls under the tax base as the supply price. General Rule 13-48-1 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that where the amount received in return for the supply of goods is not indicated separately by the value-added tax and the value-added tax is unclear, the amount equivalent to 10/110 of the transaction amount or receipt amount is the tax base.

(B) In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of each of the aforementioned evidence and the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 5, 7, 9-16 and all of the arguments, the amount omitted from the sales of this case is not included in value-added tax. Thus, it is lawful for the defendant to set the value-added tax base by making the total amount omitted from sales of this case as

1) At the time of the investigation on the omitted sales amount of the instant case, AAA, the Plaintiff’s referenced at the time of the investigation, stated that “The investigator’s question about the processing of value-added tax is an amount that is not included in value-added tax and that value-added tax is not implicitly and implicitly decided to be non-existent.” This purport is that GG, etc. was exempted from value-added tax.

2) The Plaintiff supplied oil from oil refineries and sold non-data at the price of 90% to 88% of the amount supplied. This is because, in the process that the Plaintiff purchased tax-free oil, etc. embezzled by the crew on a foreign vessel, etc. at a price lower than that of the Plaintiff and distributed it through normal oil, the purchase tax invoice corresponding thereto was required. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s sale of non-data was established based on the amount calculated by subtracting value-added tax from the beginning, and the price was paid in cash.

3) In light of the statement of AA and the content, motive, etc. of the transaction without authentic documentation, it is reasonable to deem that the instant amount omitted from sales is the value-added tax as the supply value under Article 13(1) of the former Value-Added Tax Act.

4) The Plaintiff asserts that the amount of the instant omitted sales is the tax base by multiplying the omitted sales amount by 100/110 pursuant to Rule 13-48-1 of the Value-Added Tax Act, since the value and the tax amount of the instant omitted sales are not indicated separately in the account book of non-data sales. However, as seen earlier, since the Plaintiff excluded the value-added tax from the omitted sales amount at the time of sales of non-data sales, it is reasonable to deem that the value and the tax amount received for the sales have been indicated separately (i.e., the value and the tax amount are indicated separately).

(2) Whether there exists a practice as to the value-added tax base for non-data transactions

Where it is unclear whether the value-added tax is included in the sales amount of non-data, etc. submitted by the Plaintiff, the tax review and determination, etc. shall be limited to the amount calculated by multiplying such sales amount by 100/110 as the value of supply, and the tax base shall be limited to the amount of supply, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the practice to regard the amount of non-data sales as

(3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is not accepted, and the disposition of this case is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.