early 2012 Heavy0832 (2012.08.08)

It is not true that good faith or negligence is not recognized by a false tax invoice;

The plaintiff, who had operated a gas station from around 2005, seems to know the actual state of transaction in data and the risk of transaction, the purchase price at a price lower than the market price, the transaction partner collected the shipment slips issued by the oil refining company, and issued and issued them, but there are sufficient circumstances to suspect the omission of the shipment ledger, temperature, density, sulfur content, etc., but failed to confirm it properly.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2012Guhap5293 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

AAA Petroleum Co., Ltd. 1 gas station

the director of the tax office of Western

June 14, 2013

June 21, 2013

1. All of the Plaintiff’s claims are dismissed. 2. Costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

Each disposition taken by the Defendant on April 6, 201 against the Plaintiff on the first period of 2008, 000 won for the second period of 2008, and 000 won for the second period of 2008, and 000 won for the first period of 2009.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff is a corporation that runs a wholesale and retail business with the trade name of "AAA gas station in Seo-gu, Incheon (hereinafter "the gas station in this case") in 000.

B. In operating the gas station of this case, the Plaintiff received a tax invoice of KRW 000 from the supply price of KRW 100 from the Dpos Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Dpos”), and filed a value-added tax return after deducting the supply price of KRW 000 from the output tax amount for the pertinent taxable period, for the second and first taxable periods of 2008 and value-added tax in 2009.

C. On April 6, 2011, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the first half-year portion of value-added tax in 2008 and the second half-year portion of value-added tax in 2008, and KRW 0000 for the first half-year portion of 2008, and KRW 000 for the first half-year portion of 2009 for the first half-year portion of 2009 for value-added tax on the ground that the Plaintiff did not coincide with the entry of the tax invoice, because the actual supplier of the oil to the Plaintiff is not EE energy and Dpos, while the actual supplier of the oil to the Plaintiff is not EE energy and Dpos (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an objection on July 11, 201, and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on November 15, 2011, but all dismissed.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, evidence No. 1, and the whole purport of the pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff purchased the actual oil from the EE Energy D grants and received the instant tax invoice, and the instant tax invoice cannot be deemed to constitute a false tax invoice.

2) The Plaintiff did not know the fact that the Plaintiff was not the actual supplier of the oil, or was negligent in not knowing the fact that the Plaintiff did not know of the fact that the oil sales registration certificate and business registration of the EE Energy, and DNA milk was returned to the bank account under each company’s name.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

1) Whether the instant tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice

The meaning that the entries in a tax invoice are different from the facts refers to cases where the contents of a tax invoice are inconsistent with those of the person who actually supplies or is supplied with the goods or services, regardless of the formal entries in a transaction contract, etc. made between the parties to the goods or services (see Supreme Court Decision 96Nu617, Dec. 10, 1996). The person liable to pay value-added tax, upon receipt of the tax invoice from the supplier under the Value-Added Tax Act, shall be deemed to be the person who actually performs the transaction of supplying the goods or services to the person who actually receives or is supplied with the goods or services from the supplier rather than those who form a nominal legal relationship with the supplier (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do4520, Jan. 10, 2003). In full view of the overall arguments and the following circumstances, the oil tax invoice in this case is actually recorded between the Plaintiff and the supplier, and the supplier is merely a third party with respect to the actual goods or services.

(1) As a result of the investigation by the Central and Medium Regional Tax Office, the oil of the instant tax invoice was supplied to the Plaintiff from the FFpetro Co., Ltd. to the Plaintiff, and from GG Petroleum Co., Ltd., the Plaintiff was supplied to the Plaintiff through DB, and both EE energy, such as the above FFpetro and GG Petroleum, and the superior agencies of DB, EE energy, and DB were verified as a material company that processed the sales tax invoice without real transactions and filed a complaint by the relevant parties.

② The representative of the EE Energy did not have any capacity to engage in oil and did not know what kind of oil goes through the distribution process, and EE Energy issued shipment slips and tax invoices at an office equipped only with books and computers, without holding oil storage facilities or reflect vehicles. DDRs do not hold storage facilities or transport vehicles.

③ EE energy and Dpos are not considered to have actually purchased oil from superior agencies, such as the Plaintiff, etc., and it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff and others were supplied oil from EE energy and Dpos on the tax invoice. Ultimately, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff were supplied oil from EE energy and Dpos on the tax invoice.

2) Determination on the Plaintiff’s good faith and negligence

The actual supplier and the supplier on a tax invoice may not deduct or refund the input tax amount unless there is any special circumstance that the supplier was unaware of the fact that he was unaware of the fact that he was not aware of the fact that the supplier was not aware of the name of the tax invoice, and that the person who was supplied was not negligent in not aware of the fact that the supplier was not aware of the above fact (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002). In this case, the actual supplier was not aware of the fact that the tax invoice was issued and delivered, the size and market price of the goods or services supplied, and the specific route in which the goods or services were supplied, and the trade practice in the relevant industry, etc., and the name supplier of the tax invoice was not aware of the fact that the supplier was not aware of the fact that the supplier was not aware of the actual name of the supplier, and the fact that the supplier did not know of the fact that the supplier was not aware of the fact that the supplier was not aware of the actual name, nor was negligent.

① Since the supply structure of the oil industry is complicated and frequent, it is necessary to pay special attention to whether the oil supplier is the actual supplier, and the Plaintiff, who operated the gas station from around 2005, has been aware of the normal structure of the supply of the oil, the route and method of the distribution industry, the general transaction form and method of the industry, and the actual conditions and risks of the transactions in the oil industry.

② Since the Plaintiff was supplied with oil at a price lower than the market price from EE Energy DPos, the Plaintiff continued the transaction without examining such circumstances in detail, even though it was doubtful that the said companies were not equipped with the facilities that the normal oil level and retail companies did not have or can be equipped with only formally.

3. The shipment slips issued by the oil refining station are those supplied by the oil refining station to the vehicle engineer when the transporting vehicles registered in the oil refining station receive oil in the oil reservoir, and when the vehicle engineer delivers two copies to the vehicle engineer, the vehicle engineer will deliver the oil station at the place of destination. These shipments are important materials confirming that the oil is transacted through normal distribution channels, and EE energy and Dpos are issued and issued the shipment slips issued in the name of EE energy and Opos without special reasons. Moreover, in the shipment slips issued by EE Energy Dipos, the shipment slips issued by the Plaintiff did not contain shipping places, temperature, sulfur content, etc., and the real supplier is not in the name of the tax invoice, but in the name of the supplier.

3) Sub-decisions

Thus, the tax invoice of this case is different from the facts, and the plaintiff cannot be viewed as bona fide and non-faithless input tax, and the tax invoice of this case can not be applied to input tax.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.