Cho Jae-2013-Seoul Government-2780 (Law No. 12, 2013.09)

Although it is not possible to deduct input tax by receiving a false tax invoice, it is necessary to cancel corporate tax and recognition contribution.

Although it is impossible for the supplier to receive different tax invoices from other facts and input tax deduction under the Value-Added Tax Act, the disposal of the corporation tax and the disposal of the corporation in recognition should be revoked.

2013Guhap30469 Disposition of revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

AA Development Co., Ltd.

The director of the tax office.

October 08, 2014

November 28, 2014

1. The Defendant imposed corporate tax on the Plaintiff on March 12, 2013 on the business year 2008, and the business year 2008 income earner KimB income, the notice of changes in the amount of income of the OOOB income shall be revoked in entirety.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. One-third of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

Cheong-gu Office

Paragraph 1 and the Defendant’s disposition of imposition of the value-added tax No. 2008 against the Plaintiff on March 12, 2013 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 2, 2008, the Plaintiff, a domestic corporation that runs a reinforced concrete construction business, etc. established on June 16, 2003, prepared a subcontract agreement between the Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “CCC”) and the OOOOOO of the construction cost with respect to the installation and dismantling of a network for falling-influences at the construction site of OOOdong DDD (hereinafter referred to as the “instant construction”). From July 31, 2008 to October 31, 2008, the Plaintiff received a tax invoice of the total supply value of OOOOOs (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant tax invoice”).

B. The Plaintiff, after deducting the value of supply of the tax invoice of this case as an input tax amount, included in the deductible expenses, completed the return of the value of the second taxable year of 2008 and the corporate tax for 2008.

C. Since then, as a result of the tax investigation conducted by the head of the Geumcheon Tax Office, transaction with EE safety industry (hereinafter referred to as the “EE safety industry”), false information was made, and accordingly, the Defendant deemed that the instant tax invoice constitutes a processing tax invoice issued falsely without a real transaction, and accordingly, on March 12, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff on March 12, 2013 that the value of supply was deducted from the input tax amount or the non-deductible of the corporate tax for the second year of value added tax in 2008 and the corporate tax for the business year of 2008, and notified the Plaintiff of the change in the amount of income (hereinafter referred to as the “instant taxation”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6, Eul evidence 1, 2 and 3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

CCC normally registered its business and conducted the safety net installation business, and the Plaintiff entered into a subcontract with CCC and actually performed the instant construction work. The Defendant concluded that the instant tax invoice was a processing transaction on the ground that the transaction between CCC and EE safety industry was discovered through a processing transaction. However, the EE safety business is not only deemed to have been actually engaged in a safety net-related business, but also the EE safety business cannot be deemed to have been processed as soon as the transaction between NCC and EE safety industry was a processing transaction. In particular, there is no room for deliberation on the fact that the instant construction was actually implemented, since the construction of a new apartment is an essential process to build a safety net for the prevention of abortion in the construction of a new apartment, there is no need for deliberation on the fact that the instant construction was actually implemented. Nevertheless, the instant

3. Whether the instant taxation disposition is legitimate

(a) Facts of recognition;

1) On November 22, 2007, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the F System Business Co., Ltd. for construction works of reinforced concrete construction works among DD construction works located in 351-3 located in OO-dong 351-3, with the OOO-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O

2) On June 2, 2008, the Plaintiff prepared a construction subcontract agreement with CCC on June 2, 2008, and attached a calculation sheet that specifically states the installation size, size, etc. of each building depending on the type of safety net installed.

O Construction Name: Installation and Dismantling of SG Construction Co., Ltd. at OOO-fields for the prevention of abortions

Article 2 (1) CCC shall perform construction works contracted by the Plaintiff in compliance with the contents of design drawings, specifications, etc., and shall not modify them at will without the consent of the Plaintiff.

Article 3 (Amount of Construction Works) (1) The following unit price table shall apply to construction works:

OOO (pvcsh 4,796 square meters);

2 OOO (15,745 square meters for an anti-presidential net);

Total OOOO (excluding value-added tax)

Article 4 (Period of Construction and Compensation for Delay) (1) The period of the instant construction shall be from May 1, 2008 to April 30, 2009.

Article 5 (Payment of Maturity) (1) Payment of progress payment shall be made according to the contract with the plaintiff.

(2) Escopiums shall be investigated and settled monthly in the presence of the Plaintiff and CCC.

(3) The payment date of gender shall be calculated on the 25th day of each month and the payment date shall be made on the 30th day of the following month.

3) The details of CCC’s claim against the Plaintiff and the tax invoice issued by CCC are as follows.

【Written Claim for the Filing of a Final Appeal (Liwon unit: Won unit)】

Date

The amount of the previous installment;

The amount of gold revolving;

Modr teromolas

Period of Request

June 30, 2008

OOO

OOO

OOO

June 2008

July 31, 2008

OOO

OOO

OOO

July 2008

October 31, 2008

OOO

October 2008

Total

OOO

4) With respect to the instant construction works, etc., the Plaintiff remitted the total amount of KRW OOO to CCC on seven occasions from July 4, 2008 to January 20, 2009, and reflected it in the account book. TheCC immediately withdrawn part of the amount received from the Plaintiff and remitted it to EE safety industry.

5) In our court, Kim KK, who worked as the head of the Plaintiff’s management department, ordered the instant construction work by introducing HaH from MagG to MagG via MagG. Since Hag was operating and constructing the instant construction work in the name of CCC due to the follow-up distribution of MagG, Hag was considered as a staff member of CCC. Jeju HH was permanently stationed at the construction site and carried out construction of the safety net through the human body. At the time of concluding the instant construction contract, Dah stated that the CCC’s representative was not directly engaged in but Mag.

6) Meanwhile, the CCC opened business on June 17, 2004. On the ground of the non-exclusive transfer of the place of business, the CCC closed its business ex officio by the tax authority on December 16, 2009, and the representative in the name of the former II or the actual business operator is Kim J. In addition, the CCC’s business registration certificate issued on September 21, 2007 by the head of the Geumcheon District Tax Office stated that the said company runs a wholesale and retail business for manufacturing and installing golf nets, safety net facilities, etc. with its place of business under the OO-gu O-dong O-dong O-dong 955-4.

7) During the process of undergoing a tax investigation by the head of the Geumcheon District Tax Office, Kim J received a tax invoice from a pre-existing company without real transaction and issued some processing tax invoices. The EE safety industry is a company that is even engaged in purchase and sales, and the sales are supplied with materials and the sales are entrusted with the execution of the purchase. Accordingly, although some transactions actually take place, most of them are processed transactions.

8) On April 7, 208, 2008, O2-2, O209, O200, O22-2, while moving the place of business to O281-2 on February 24, 2010, O28, O281-2, and the EE safety industry discontinued as a business depression on September 30, 2010. The EE safety industry was 2 years 2 years 2008 and 1 year 2009, O209, O200:

Second Period, 2008

1, 2009

Total

Original

Sales

OOO

OOO

OOO

Purchase

OOO

OOO

OOO

Tax

Investigation

Sales Processing

OOO

OOO

OOO

Purchase and Processing

OOO

OOO

OOO

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 5 to 24, Eul evidence 4 and 5 (including each number), the testimony by the witness Kim J and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Determination

1) Comprehensively considering the facts acknowledged as above, the plaintiff prepared a subcontract agreement concerning the construction of this case, i.e., the following circumstances, i., ① the construction period, settlement method of prices, etc. The contract itself shows credibility. ② The plaintiff paid the construction cost according to the ratio of the construction cost to the original cost as provided by the subcontract agreement, as well as the issuance of the tax invoice in this case. ③ The total supply price of the tax invoice issued on May and June 2008 (Evidence No. 12 No. 5) was OOO and its customer director (Evidence No. 12), and the construction cost of this case was 208,000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,000,0000,0000,0000,0000,000,0000,000,000,000.

2) However, according to the Plaintiff’s employee’s testimony on the instant construction project, which promoted the subcontract and managed the execution thereof, the instant construction project appears to have been implemented by JejuH rather than CCC. As such, the instant tax invoice constitutes a tax invoice different from the fact that the supplier entered differently from the fact, and constitutes a tax invoice different from the fact prescribed in Article 17(2)1-2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9915, Jan. 1, 2010). Furthermore, at the time of entering into the subcontract for the instant construction project, KimK did not verify whether the Plaintiff is a DaCC’s employee or a person with the authority to represent CCC’s employee at the time of entering into the subcontract for the instant construction project, and there was no evidence to prove otherwise that the Plaintiff was negligent in not knowing the name of H, and thus, the value of supply of the instant tax invoice cannot be deducted as an input tax amount.

3) If so, the imposition of value-added tax in the instant taxation is legitimate, but the remaining imposition of corporate tax and the notice of change in income amount are unlawful.

5. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remainder is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.