The early appellate court 2012 Mine3015

No person shall be a nominal business entity solely with the content of an agreement, the preparation date of which is unclear.

Value-added tax and source tax, etc. were reported in the name of the Plaintiff on the annual sales of the instant wedding hall, and expenditure was made through the Plaintiff’s account, and the contents of an unclear lease agreement and agreement made at any time are difficult to believe that the Plaintiff is a business operator in the name of the Plaintiff.

Article 14 [Real Taxation] of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2012Guhap3764 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Corporate Tax, etc.

Limited liability Company AA

Head of the Jeonju Tax Office

September 4, 2013

November 13, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

On April 2, 2012, the Defendant revoked each disposition of imposition of the corporate tax for 2010 business year for the Plaintiff, the second quarter value-added tax for 2010, the first quarter of value-added tax for 201, the first quarter of 2010, and the second quarter of value-added tax for 2011.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation established on June 1, 2010 for the purpose of real estate consulting business, food service business, wedding business, operation of trading centers, facility management, and incidental business related to lease, etc.

B. As a result of conducting a tax investigation with respect to the Plaintiff from January 18, 2012 to February 6, 2012, the Defendant determined that the Plaintiff omitted the sales of OOOO members during the first taxable period of value-added tax in 2011, the sales of OO members during the second taxable period of value-added tax in 201, the sales of OO members during the second taxable period of value-added tax in 201, the sales of OO members during the second taxable period of value-added tax in 201, the sales of OO members during the second taxable period of value-added tax in 201, 2010, 2010, 2010, 2010, 2010, 2011, 201, 201, 2010, 2010, 201, 201, 2010, 2010, 200.

C. On June 20, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an appeal seeking revocation of each of the dispositions of this case with the Tax Tribunal, which was dissatisfied with each of the dispositions of this case, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on October 9, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 5, 6 (if there are virtual numbers, including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Defendant issued each of the instant dispositions on the premise that the Plaintiff operated the instant wedding hall. However, from August 12, 2010, the Plaintiff acquired the instant wedding building and site through auction, the Plaintiff leased the instant wedding building and site to BB to a limited company and returned it on December 30, 2011. During that period, the instant wedding hall was actually operated not by the Plaintiff but by the Plaintiff, which is the actual owner of the limited company BB, and the Plaintiff, irrelevant to the high-CC, did not engage in or have accrued profit from the instant wedding hall operation. Therefore, the corporate tax due to the omission of sales generated from the instant wedding hall, and the value-added tax should be imposed on the high-CC, which is the actual interest-added business owner of the instant wedding hall, in accordance with the substance over form principle.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) On June 4, 2010, the Plaintiff registered a real estate business with the Defendant as the main business, and changed the main business from August 30, 2010 to the service business, the secondary business was changed to the general food business and the real estate business.

2) On August 12, 2010, the Plaintiff purchased the instant wedding building and site owned by DD, OO-dong 1, O-dong 1, O-dong 410-1, in a voluntary auction procedure, and acquired the ownership of the instant wedding building and site by full payment of the sales price on August 12, 2010.

3) From September 4, 2010, the Plaintiff reported to the Defendant the value-added tax base for the second period of value-added tax in 2010, as the sales of food services (stage performances) occurred in the instant wedding hall, and the Plaintiff filed each return on the Plaintiff’s credit card sales slip, purchase invoice, purchase invoice, and purchase invoice under the Plaintiff’s name while filing a return on the value-added tax base for the second period of value-added tax in 2010, and the details of sales slip related to corrosion purchase are also the Plaintiff.

4) Meanwhile, prior to the Plaintiff’s acquisition of ownership of the instant wedding building and site, BB leased the instant wedding building and site from DDD to limited liability companies and operated the instant wedding hall. In relation to the operation of the instant wedding hall, BB reported to the Defendant each of the return tax base for value-added tax for the second term portion of the value-added tax in 2010, OOOO(POOOO, final tax return OOO, final tax returnOOO), OOO(preliminary, final tax returnOO, final tax returnOO) as value-added tax base for the first term portion of the value-added tax in 201, and OOO(preliminary) as value-added tax base for the second term portion of the value-added tax in 2011.

5) The Defendant deemed highCC as the actual representative of the Plaintiff and the limited liability company BB in the course of the consolidated investigation of corporate tax and the investigation by item of value-added tax on the Plaintiff scheduled from January 18, 2012 to February 6, 2012, and deemed that highCC omitted sales due to the preparation of double books, etc., and converted the Plaintiff’s income into a tax offense investigation on February 2, 2012.

6) In the process of the above investigation, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff leased the instant wedding to BB, and submitted to the Defendant each confirmation document in the name of the former representative director, KimF, and the Plaintiff’s former representative director, on August 12, 2010, each of the facts stated below, to the effect that the Plaintiff leased the instant wedding, and that the DaCC, a real representative of the limited liability company BB, operated the instant wedding, after leasing the instant wedding from the Plaintiff.

- Written lease contract dated August 12, 2010 -

Lease: Limited Liability Company A/Lessee: Limited Liability Company BB

1. Indication of real estate: Building and site of the wedding hall in this case;

2. Details of the contract;

- Objectives: The use of wedding halls and wedding hall:

- Period: from the date of the payment of the remainder of the contract on August 12, 2010

- Conditions: OOOO (monthly rent shall be later consulted);

3. Matters of the special agreement;

- A lease agreement entered into between a limited liability company BB and a limited liability company DD on October 1, 2009 is void.

- The Convention dated August 16, 2012 -

2. Details of agreement;

- Period: One year from August 12, 201, which is the date of the payment of the remainder of the contract;

- Conditions: OOO as already prescribed for rental deposit, OOOO for rent;

-special agreement

(1) A limited liability company DD, limited liability company HH, lessee, and highCC shall not claim a lien on leased real estate after the expiration of the lease agreement.

(2) After the expiration of the lease term, a lessee shall promote all facilities, houses, etc. installed or purchased by a lessee in connection with the operation of a wedding hall without compensation to the lessor.

(3) Where a tenant makes a request, a lessor shall open a deposit passbook in the name of a landlord and obtain a credit card and use it.

7) According to the result of the tax offense investigation conducted by the Defendant against the Plaintiff, sales related to the instant wedding, however, since September 4, 2010, after the Plaintiff acquired ownership of the instant wedding building and site, sales related to the instant wedding hall were generated in BB by the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff and the limited liability company BBB separately reported value-added tax arising from the sales that occurred from the instant wedding hall operation from September 4, 201 to December 31, 201.

8) Based on the result of the investigation of tax offenses on March 21, 2012, the Defendant accused the Plaintiff and highCC at the former District Prosecutors’ Office, and on July 3, 2012, the former District Prosecutors’ Office requested the former District Court to issue a summary order regarding the Plaintiff’s charges of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.

9) According to the statement of earned income in 2010 that the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant in 2010, it appears that Park II, Kim J, Yoon K, Lee K, Lee MM, the largest NN was an employee of the limited liability company BB, and that he/she provided labor as the Plaintiff’s employee around August or around September 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 7, Evidence No. 9 through 11, Evidence No. 2 through 7, Evidence No. 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

The principle of substantial taxation declared by Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes is a practical principle for realizing the principle of equality, which is the basic ideology of the Constitution, in a tax legal relationship. In a case where any unreasonable form or appearance, which differs from the substance of the taxation requirement, is taken for the purpose of evading a tax burden, the main purpose of this principle is to regulate the act of tax avoidance and enhance the equity of taxation by imposing tax at a place where the taxable capacity exists, regardless of the form or appearance, and thereby to realize a tax justice (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2008Du8499, Jan. 19, 2012). The determination of a taxpayer under the principle of substantial taxation is not a external appearance, but a legal substance. Thus, if the ownership of income, profit, property, or transaction subject to taxation is merely nominal, and there is a separate person to whom it actually belongs, the person who actually bears the burden of proving that the transaction is merely nominal and the person to whom it actually belongs.

In light of the following circumstances that can be seen by comprehensively considering the overall arguments regarding the instant case, i.e., (i) the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant wedding building and site on August 12, 2010; (ii) the Plaintiff added a general food-related business to a real estate business entity on August 30, 2010; and (iii) from September 4, 2010, the Plaintiff reported various taxes, including value-added tax, in its name, on the annual sales generated from the instant wedding Chapter to the instant wedding Chapter; and (iv) the Plaintiff’s annual sales of the instant model, including the instant model-based limited company and the instant model-based limited company, on the premise that it was difficult for the Plaintiff to find out the entire annual sales of the instant building and the instant model-based limited company and the Plaintiff’s annual sales of the instant model-based sales of the instant building and the instant model-based limited company, based on the annual sales agreement concluded between the Plaintiff and the instant model-based limited company and the Plaintiff’s annual sales of the instant model-based sales of the instant case.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed in entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.