In the case of consent to closure, requirements for negligence suspected of being a disguised business operator

In the case of waste resources such as waste Dong, there is sufficient reason to suspect the other party as a disguised business operator, but there is negligence on the part of the other party who was unaware of the fact that the other party

Tax amount paid under Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2015Guhap8201 Disposition to revoke the imposition of value-added tax

Aa

Head of Namyang District Tax Office

208.23

oly 2016.104

1. The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 17,069,69,690 against the Plaintiff on February 61, 2014 is revoked. 2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendant.

The same shall apply to the order of the Gu office.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From August 18, 1997, the Plaintiff: (a) was engaged in the waste resources wholesale business in the name of “a metal” in the name of “a metal”; (b) was deducted from the output tax amount, the Plaintiff reported the tax base and tax amount of value-added tax by deducting the input tax amount of KRW 94,214,60 (hereinafter “the instant tax invoice”) for the aggregate of the two supply values of purchase tax invoices received from the same kind of enterprise in which Nonparty Aa runs in the name of “a metal” during the taxable period of value-added tax for the second half of 2011.

B. As a result of an investigation related to transaction order against AA non-ferrous, the director of the Central Tax Office of China determined that modern non-ferrouss were false or processed in relation to waste resources, and notified the Defendant of the fact that the instant tax invoice constituted a false tax invoice. Accordingly, on February 6, 2014, the Defendant issued a correction and notification of value-added tax of KRW 17,069,69,690 (including additional tax) (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). On August 5, 2014, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the investigation and filed a request with the Tax Tribunal on August 5, 2014, but was dismissed on March 18, 2015.

2. Whether the disposition of this case is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

As stated in the tax invoice of this case, the Plaintiff was supplied with AB-A-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-

A even if a non-stock constitutes a so-called material, the Plaintiff did not know such fact at the time of the transaction, confirmed the identification card, the business registration certificate, and the certificate of personal seal impression from the representative of a non-stock, and confirmed that a non-stock is a normal business operator, such as transferring the transaction price to a bank account under the name of Aa, and fulfilled its duty of care as a bona fide trading party. Accordingly, the instant disposition was unlawful

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

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

Article 17(2)2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11129, Dec. 31, 201; hereinafter the same) provides that input tax shall not be deducted from the output tax amount in cases where the entries of a tax invoice are different from the facts. Inasmuch as the contents of a tax invoice are different from the facts, a case where the requisite entries of a tax invoice are inconsistent with those of the parties to the transaction contract, etc. prepared between the parties to the goods or services, notwithstanding the formal entries of the transaction contract, etc. entered between the parties to the transaction contract, where the goods or services are actually supplied or supplied, and the price and time of the goods or services supplied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu617, Dec. 10, 196). In this case, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s provision of a tax invoice constitutes a non-permanent scrap metal business entity, not the Plaintiff’s actual supplier’s sales of the goods or services, constitutes a non-permanent scrap metal business entity.

① On June 17, 2011, AA was leased 00 a.a. a.a. and registered the said place as a place of business of AAB, and the lease agreement was terminated on December 5 of the same year on July 1, 2011 due to the failure to pay the rent. A.A. B. B. B. D.’s investigation team visited the said place of business of ABBB, and then closed the said place of business for five months only without paying the value-added tax and the comprehensive income tax, with the commencement of business on July 1, 2011, causing only the sales of KRW 8,330,570,830 without the details of purchase.

③ In order to run the closed wholesale business, considerable amount of funds is required. A.a. appears to have little means to commence the business, and A.a. during the period of the value-added tax period of the value-added tax for the second year of 2011, issued sales tax invoices of KRW 8.3 billion and failed to receive the purchase tax invoices at all, and no evidence was presented to the tax authority to reveal the identity of the purchaser or to acknowledge the purchase of the closed wholesale business.

4. Thisa has withdrawn in full over 110 times the amount of the goods remitted from the sales offices of A non-stock, and has not given specific answers to the user of the said cash withdrawn.

⑤ It was prosecuted for committing the crime of issuing 72 copies of the sales tax invoice of KRW 8,330,570,830 in total without supplying the actual waste to eight business parties, including aa metal. On May 16, 2014, the Seoul High Court rendered a judgment of KRW 3 years of suspension of execution, a fine of KRW 30,000,000 in imprisonment for two years, as it was found guilty of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act) by the Seoul High Court, and the said judgment of conviction became final and conclusive on August 20, 2014 by dismissal of appeal to the Supreme Court.

(1) As the actual supplier and the supplier on the tax invoice do not know the fact that the other party to the transaction was not aware of the fact that the other party to the transaction was not aware of the name of the tax invoice, the Plaintiff cannot deduct or refund the input tax amount, and the party who asserts that the other party was not aware of the fact that the other party was not aware of the fact that the other party was not aware of the fact that the other party was not aware of the transaction under the above name of the purchaser, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have a duty to actively investigate whether the other party was a disguised supplier of the transaction or not, and as such, that the other party was not aware of the fact that the other party was not aware of the fact that the other party was not aware of the fact that the other party was not aware of the fact that the other party was a disguised supplier of the transaction under the name of this case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002).

Therefore, the disposition of this case is unlawful, and the plaintiff's assertion pointing this out is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and accepted.