beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff’s claim for revocation of imposition of local income tax among the lawsuits against the head of Dongjak Tax Office is dismissed.
2.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff, in the name of “B” from January 10, 2012 to “B,” is an entrepreneur engaged in wholesale and retail business in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and received three copies of the tax invoices (hereinafter “instant tax invoices”) as follows from D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) during the first taxable period in 2012, and deducted the instant tax invoices from the first taxable period in 2012, and filed a value-added tax return by deducting them as the input tax amount.
60,000g 60,000g April 13, 2012 for 45,400,000 4,540,540,000 on March 15, 2012 for the supply value (supply value) of the goods on the date of issuance of tax invoices for the taxable period, March 15, 2012; 40,000g May 73, 200g for 73,640,000, 700g for 70,000g for 188,940,000g for 188,940,000, 18,894,000 for 18,894,000
B. After investigating value-added tax on D from September 12, 2012 to November 30, 201 of the same year, the head of the relevant tax office confirmed that D received 99% or more of the purchase tax invoice without real transaction. On March 2014, he/she conducted a value-added tax investigation on the Plaintiff who received the purchase tax invoice from D and deemed that the Plaintiff received the instant tax invoice without real transaction.
Accordingly, on May 1, 2014, the head of the tax office issued a revised and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 3,886,380 of the value-added tax for the first period of 1st, 2012. On the same day, the head of the Dongjak Tax Office issued a revised and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 81,19,620 of the global income tax for the year 2012 and KRW 8,056,120 of the local income tax for the year 2012.
(B) Of the above dispositions, the imposition of value-added tax of KRW 33,886,380 for the first period of January 2012 and KRW 81,19,620 for global income tax of KRW 20 for the year 2012 (hereinafter “instant disposition”). In response, the Plaintiff filed a petition with the Tax Tribunal for an inquiry on August 1, 2014, but was dismissed on November 24, 2014.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 11 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Imposition of local income tax among lawsuits against the Plaintiff’s head of Dongjak Tax Office.