Where a report on value-added tax on several real estate leases is filed in a lump sum with the main business operator number, it shall be subject to additional tax.

Even if the value-added tax on rental income is reported and paid with the business operator number of the head office without business registration for each location of real estate, it cannot be deemed a legitimate report and payment, and it shall be subject to the imposition of unregistered additional tax and additional tax on negligent tax returns.

Article 4 of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 5 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act; Article 33

2012 disposition of revocation of the imposition of value-added tax

XX Co., Ltd

The director of Gwangju Tax Office

November 15, 2012

January 10, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

On December 13, 2011, the Defendant revoked the imposition of additional tax for non-registration and non-performance of the duty to file a report as stated in the attached Form, which was made against the Plaintiff on December 13, 201 (the date of the disposition stated in the written complaint seems to be written in writing).

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff (former Savings Bank), whose head office is in Dong-dong-gu, Gwangju Metropolitan City 4 53, engaged in a real estate rental business for the real estate of 56-2 and 14 real estate (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “real estate of this case”) that was acquired through the exercise of security right, and reported and paid the value-added tax on the rental income in a lump sum with the business number of the head office without applying for a comprehensive payment of value-added tax for the main place of business or without registering it as a business unit of taxable business.

B. On December 13, 2011, the Defendant discovered the above facts through an integrated investigation of corporate tax against the Plaintiff, which was conducted from September 14, 201 to March 30, 201, and registered the business ex officio with the location of the real estate as the place of business. On December 13, 2011, the Defendant imposed and notified the Plaintiff of the non-registration penalty tax and additional tax on negligent tax returns from the second half to the first half of 2004 as stated in the attached imposition details (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On March 7, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on the instant disposition, but was dismissed on May 25, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

1) The rent revenue of the instant real estate is not arising from the main business but from contingent and incidental business, and the Plaintiff is not subject to additional tax as the Plaintiff has faithfully reported and paid the value-added tax thereon.

2) Even though the Plaintiff reported and paid the value-added tax en bloc on the business number of its head office, there was no problem at issue. On April 2006, the Plaintiff responded that there was no problem at the time of telephone counseling with the employee in charge. Nevertheless, imposing additional tax is contrary to the principle of good faith and the principle of application of tax law.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Acts and subordinate statutes.

C. Determination

1) Whether the imposition of additional tax is appropriate

According to Articles 4(1) and 5 of the Value-Added Tax Act and Articles 4(1)4 and 33(1) and (4)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, a business operator shall report and pay business registration and value-added taxes for each place of business, and real estate leasing business shall be deemed a place of business, and real estate leasing services shall not be deemed an incidental service to financial services. Thus, in the event that a company mainly engaged in financial business supplies real estate leasing services, it shall not be deemed an incidental service to financial services, and shall report and pay business registration and value-added tax to the head office having jurisdiction over the location of the real estate. Furthermore, if a business operator submits an estimate and final return of value-added tax calculated as the supply value of a place of business to the head office, such report shall be included in the supply value of the head office, and if it is submitted to the head office, the scheduled and final return of value-added tax calculated as the supply value of the head office shall not be effective (see Supreme Court Decision 84Nu502, Jun. 11, 1985).

2) Whether the principle of good faith has been violated

In order for a taxation disposition to be illegal as it violates the principle of trust and good faith, the tax authority should first state the public opinion that is the subject of trust to the taxpayer. However, the taxation authority’s receipt of the preliminary and final return of value-added tax by an entrepreneur who is a taxpayer cannot be deemed as having expressed a certain public opinion regarding the taxation of value-added tax (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu6415, Feb. 25, 1992). Furthermore, the same applies to cases where there was no corrective measure or taxation decision at the time of the previous tax investigation, or where the tax authority explained to the effect that there was no problem at the time of telephone consultation by an employee

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.