Whether evidence is included in deductible expenses of insufficient expenses

Any other party to the payment, the date and time of payment, the amount of payment, etc., may be presumed to have been paid in part of the service cost, but it is legitimate that such amount is not included in the calculation of losses, as there is no evidence to specifically determine

Article 19 (Scope of Deductible Expenses)

Tax amount paid under Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant's disposition of imposition of corporate tax of 21,931,700 won, and value-added tax of 202 for two years of 2002 against the plaintiff on April 10, 2004 (the defendant's complaint was written on April 6, 2004, but according to Gap evidence Nos. 1-1 and 2-2, each disposition of imposition of corporate tax of 21,931,700 won, and value-added tax of 2,112,410 won shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts shall not be disputed between the parties, or may be recognized by taking into account the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry in subparagraphs 1 through 3, and in subparagraphs 1 through 6 (including each number):

A. The plaintiff is a corporation whose purpose is to carry on cargo transport business, such as transporting products such as air purification apparatus, air cooling apparatus, etc. produced at the ○○○○○ factory. Around 2002, the plaintiff received three copies of purchase tax invoices (value 40,200,000 won) from ○○○ Co., Ltd. and three copies of purchase tax invoices (value 40,60,000 won) from ○○○ Co., Ltd., and filed a corporate tax return by including the total value of 80,80,000 won as the input tax amount deducted from the output tax amount, in calculating the corporate income amount.

B. The Defendant: (a) notified the head of ○○ Tax Office and the head of ○○ Tax Office of the taxation data that ○○○ Tax Office issued by ○○○ Tax Office and the ○○ Transportation Co., Ltd. of the taxation data that no real transaction is conducted; (b) notified that 80,800,000 won of the above supply value should be deducted from the input tax amount; and (c) corrected the value-added tax and corporate tax for the total amount of 80,80,000 won by not deducting the input tax amount; and (d) on April 10, 2004, imposed the Plaintiff the value-added tax amounting to 6,546,750 won for the first period of 202, the value-added tax amounting to 6,112,410 won, and the corporate tax amount of 21,931,700 won for the second period of 202 (the part for which the Plaintiff seeks revocation as the instant lawsuit is referred to as “the instant disposition”).

2. Whether the instant taxation disposition is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

First, the Plaintiff did not own only one truck, and transported products such as air purification apparatus, air air conditioning apparatus, etc. produced at ○○○○○○ Factory, Inc. with all of the cargo vehicles used. Since 2002, the Plaintiff paid each transportation charge to the brokerage company or driver, and only received a tax invoice issued in the name of ○○○ Co., Ltd. and ○○○○○ Co., Ltd., and thus, the instant tax invoice does not constitute a false tax invoice without real transactions.

Second, even if the tax invoice of this case constitutes a false tax invoice, it is true that the plaintiff paid each of the above transportation costs to the brokerage company or driver, so it is justifiable for the plaintiff to dispose of the above KRW 80,800,000 in the calculation of corporate tax. Thus, it is unlawful to impose corporate tax in the disposition of this case.

(b) Related statutes;

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

(c) Whether imposition of value-added tax is directly made;

Article 17(2)1-2 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that an input tax amount in a case where the details of a tax invoice are different from the facts, shall not be deducted from the output tax amount. In such a case, the fact that it is different from the fact is that the ownership of the income, profit, calculation, act or transaction subject to taxation is nominal, and if there is a separate person to whom such income, profit, or transaction belongs, the person to whom such income, profit, or transaction belongs shall be liable for tax payment and the relevant tax law shall apply. In light of the purport of Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, where the necessary entries in a tax invoice are inconsistent with those in a transaction contract, etc. prepared between the parties

The plaintiff's assertion does not change the plaintiff's request for transportation service and payment for transportation service to the OOO corporation and OO transportation corporation, but it is not that the plaintiff requested transportation service to another intermediary company or individual driver. The above argument is true, unless there is any evidence to prove that the plaintiff was unaware of the name of the intermediary company or individual driver, and that there was no negligence, it is still impossible to find that the tax invoice of this case is an input tax amount which cannot be deducted pursuant to the above Value-Added Tax Act. Thus, the defendant's disposition of this case that did not deduct the input tax amount of the tax invoice is legitimate (Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is just that there was no real transaction corresponding to the tax invoice of this case between the plaintiff and OOO corporation and OO transportation corporation. Ultimately, the above argument is to dispute the illegality of the disposition of imposing corporate tax rather than the intent to dispute the illegality of the disposition of imposing value-added tax).

(c) Whether to impose value-added tax;

If a tax invoice on a part of the expenses reported by a taxpayer is proved to have been prepared falsely by a tax authority without real transactions, and it is disputed as to whether it is an actual expense and the other party to the payment of the expenses alleged by the taxpayer has been proved to be false, it is necessary to prove that such expenses have been actually paid by the taxpayer by submitting data, such as books and evidence, in a way that it is easy for the taxpayer to present such data.

If the plaintiff asserts that he was not entrusted with transportation services to ○○○○ Co., Ltd. and ○○○○○ Co., Ltd., but actually paid the service fees to the above intermediary company or individual driver, the service fees paid to him shall be included in the expenses of the plaintiff as necessary expenses and shall be included in the deductible expenses. As to the plaintiff's payment of transportation fees corresponding to the tax invoice of this case, it shall be proved by the plaintiff in accordance with the above legal principles. Furthermore, the payment relation of transportation fees shall be proved to the extent that it is possible to specifically determine the counterpart of the payment, the date of payment, and the amount of payment, etc. to the extent that it can be proved, and shall be included in the deductible expenses as necessary expenses within the pertinent taxable period. However, according to the purport of the testimony and arguments by ○○○ Co., Ltd. and ○○○○ Co., Ltd., Ltd., and the purport of the testimony and arguments by ○○○ Co., Ltd., Ltd., and the amount corresponding to the deductible expenses during the taxable period of this case.

Therefore, under the premise that real transactions equivalent to 80,800,000 won on the tax invoice of this case cannot be recognized, it is legitimate that the defendant did not include the above amount in deductible expenses, and it is legitimate to correct and impose corporate tax for the business year 2002 based on this premise, and the plaintiff's allegation in this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.

Value-Added Tax Act

Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount)

Corporate Tax Act

Article 19 (Scope of Deductible Expenses)