Whether the purchase tax invoice received from the suspect of material facts is recognized as necessary expenses

In light of the fact that the amount withdrawn from the head of the Tong was confirmed to have been paid to the non-party company, the submission of the export goods processing contract, etc. was made, and the cash transaction in other taxable periods was recognized as normal transaction from the defendant, etc.

Article 80 [Rectification and Determination] of the Income Tax Act

1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 192,443,250 against the Plaintiff on April 12, 2006 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

same as the entry.

1. Details of the imposition;

A. From March 25, 1999 to October 22, 2001, the Plaintiff: (a) as a business operator who had engaged in clothing export business in the name of “○○○○○ Dong ○○○○○○○○○dong,” “○○ Korea; and (b) filed a return on the comprehensive income tax for 2001 with the Defendant, the Plaintiff received four copies of the tax invoice from ○○○○○ Plus Co., Ltd. (the trade name before the change: ○○○○○○ Korea Co., Ltd.; hereinafter “the non-party company”); and (c) included it in the global income tax as necessary expenses; and (d) reported it as the purchase tax invoice of value-added tax.

B. On April 12, 2006, the Defendant deemed the instant tax invoice issued by the non-party company, which was accused of data, as the processing tax invoice issued without any actual transaction, and added the supply value of the instant tax invoice to the necessary expenses, and subsequently corrected and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 192,443,250 of the global income tax in 2001 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On July 10, 2006, the Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the instant disposition and requested to the International Tribunal for an inquiry, but was dismissed on January 25, 2007.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 9, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1 to 10, Eul evidence 4-2 and 3-3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition of imposition is lawful.

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff received an order of clothes from around January 2001, and entered into a clinical processing service contract with the non-party company, and received the clothes from the non-party company from January 2001 to March 2001 under that contract and paid KRW 25,245,60 to the non-party company as the price for the processing and supply of the clothing. Thus, the instant tax invoice was issued under a normal transaction, but on a different premise, the instant tax invoice was unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7319 of Dec. 31, 2004)

Article 80 (Settlement and Correction)

(1) If a person liable to make a final return on the tax base pursuant to Articles 70 through 72 or 74 fails to make such return, the chief of the district tax office or the director of the regional tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment shall determine the

(2) If a person who has made a final return on the tax base pursuant to Articles 70 through 72 or 74, falls under any of the following subparagraphs, the superintendent of the district tax office or the director of a regional tax office having jurisdiction over the

1. Where an omission or error exists in the contents of return;

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) The details of the contract for processing goods and the details of passbook transactions presented by the Plaintiff as materials proving that the transaction under the instant tax invoice was actually conducted with the Nonparty Company are as follows.

The tax invoice of this case

Export Product Processing Contract

Details of passbook transactions

Date

Value of supply (cost)

Date of contract

Contract Price (cost)

Date of delivery

Date

Amount (won)

January 30, 200

70,013,200

January 2, 2001

70,013,200

January 8, 2001

January 10, 200

(1) 5,000,000

January 27, 2001

February 9, 2001

(2) 62,925,960

d February 28, 2001

62,058,200

d February 1, 2001

62,058,200

February 7, 2001

February 17, 2001

(3) 39,700,000

d February 20, 200

March 24, 2001

(4) 45,000,000

d March 20, 201

51,152,000

may 2, 2001

51,152,000

March 10, 201

April 30, 201

(5) 50,000,000

March 30, 201

72,022,200

may 2, 2001

72,022,200

March 19, 2001

may 2, 2001

(6) 13,500,000

March 27, 2001

guidance.

255,245,600

255,245,600

266,125,960

(2) According to the cash receipt and disbursement statement of the Plaintiff, the amount of 1 to 619,640 won out of the amount and 6,640 won was paid to each non-party company for the settlement of accounts receivable (total 255,245,600 won). According to the customer’s ledger between the non-party company and the non-party company, the amount of 5,000,000 won on January 30, 201; 62,925,960 won on February 28, 2001; 14,145,440 won on February 28, 201; 25,55,560 won on March 20, 201; 2050 won on the cash account of the non-party company’s 14,554,560 won on March 30, 201.

(3) The Plaintiff submitted the deposit sheet to the Nonparty Company that only paid the amount to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff was a cash transaction of KRW 14,850,000 on February 1, 1999 between the Nonparty Company and the Nonparty Company, but all of the transaction was recognized as a normal transaction by the Defendant. At the time of issuance of the instant tax invoice, the Nonparty Company, the representative director of the Nonparty Company, at the time of issuance of the instant tax invoice, submitted a confirmation that there was a real transaction between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff.

(4) In the event that the Plaintiff received an order for clothing from the foreign loan, he purchased the raw materials from ○○N Co., Ltd., processed them to manufacture the clothing, and exported them after being supplied to the non-party company, etc. The Plaintiff did not have the processing facilities of clothing, etc. itself. According to the Plaintiff’s value-added tax return on January 1, 2001 to March 31, 2001, the total export amount of KRW 528,350,839 is KRW 211,269,00, KRW 315,960,60 with the cost of purchasing the raw materials during the above period, and KRW 315,60 with the cost of purchasing the raw materials during the above period. If it is deemed that the instant tax invoice was false and that it was not spent as the cost of processing, it shall not be deemed that the cost of processing processing was less than the amount of KRW 60,715,00 (315,96,60-25,05).

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence 2-1 through 10, Gap evidence 4-1 through 3, Gap evidence 5, Gap evidence 6-1 through 5, Gap evidence 7, 8, Gap evidence 10-1 through 9, Gap evidence 11, Gap evidence 12-1 through 3, Gap evidence 13-1, 2, Gap evidence 14-1, 2, Eul evidence 17 through 21, Eul evidence 4-3, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) In the administrative litigation seeking the revocation of a taxation disposition on the grounds of illegality, the tax authority has the burden of proving the legality of the taxation disposition and the existence of the taxation requirement fact, so in principle, the tax authority shall bear the burden of proving necessary expenses which are the basis of the determination of taxable income. However, insofar as there are special circumstances such as where the tax invoice on some of the expenses reported by the taxpayer was proved to be false without real transactions, the tax authority must prove that it is reasonable to determine whether it is real expenses, and where it is proved to the extent that the taxpayer's assertion and the other party to the payment was proved to be false, it is necessary to prove that it is easy for the taxpayer to present data such as books and evidence regarding the fact that such expenses have been actually paid (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Nu3407, Jul. 14, 1995; 96Nu8192, Sept. 26, 197).

(2) As seen earlier with regard to the instant case, although a transaction falling under the value of the instant tax invoice between the Plaintiff and the Nonparty Company was a cash transaction, it is recorded that the amount deposited on each corresponding date was paid to the Plaintiff’s cash receipt book and the customer ledger according to the Plaintiff’s transaction date. ② Although the Plaintiff failed to submit a deposit slip on the total value of the instant tax invoice, the Plaintiff submitted a deposit slip on the export consignment contract and part of the amount between the Nonparty Company. The representative of the Nonparty Company confirmed that the contract was an actual transaction, ③ the Plaintiff was a cash transaction between the Nonparty Company and the Nonparty Company, which was recognized as a normal transaction from the Defendant, and the transaction falling under the value of the instant tax invoice was less than the amount of the Plaintiff’s export if the transaction was a processing transaction falling under the value of the instant tax invoice, the Nonparty Company was accused of the part of the data, and it cannot be readily concluded that the Plaintiff did not pay the instant tax invoice in full due to the mere fact that the Plaintiff did not have any other evidence that it constitutes the value of the instant tax invoice.

Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition of this case, which did not include necessary expenses on the ground that the transaction corresponding to the value of supply of the tax invoice of this case is a processing transaction, is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.