beta
Title
propriety of a disposition denying the zero tax rate under a written purchase approval
Summary
It is reasonable to see that gold bullion is not exported at the time of transaction. Thus, a disposition denying the application of zero tax rate under a purchase approval is legitimate.
Related statutes
Article 11 (Application of Value-Added Tax Act)
Text
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
2. The Defendant’s imposition disposition of KRW 673,437,150 in 200 against the Plaintiff on December 1, 200 of value-added tax of KRW 982,781,490 in 200 and the imposition disposition of KRW 4,804,141,70 in 200 and the imposition disposition of KRW 4,397,642,197 in 200 shall be revoked, respectively.
3. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.
4. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be five minutes, and four minutes shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.
Purport of claim and appeal
1. Purport of claim
The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 982,781,490 on December 1, 2000 against the Plaintiff and KRW 4,804,141,70 on December 1, 200 and KRW 4,804,141,70 on December 1, 200 shall be revoked.
2. Purport of appeal
A. The plaintiff
The part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's imposition of value-added tax of KRW 982,781,490 in 200 against the plaintiff on December 1, 200 and KRW 4,538,559,350 in the disposition of imposition of KRW 309,34,340 in 200 and value-added tax of KRW 4,804,141,70 in 200 shall be revoked.
B. Defendant
The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.
Reasons
1. Details of the imposition;
The following facts are not different between the parties, or may be recognized by Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 8, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number), and the whole purport of arguments.
A. The Plaintiff is a corporation established on July 5, 199 for the purpose of the wholesale, retail, and export and import of precious metals and gold bullion.
B. The Plaintiff’s declaration of value-added tax in 2000
(1) From January 7, 200 to June 17, 2000, the Plaintiff: (a) had a total of 1,430,775,000 won on ○ Metal Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○ Metal”) within the first taxable period of value-added tax in 2000; (b) had a total of 2,176,431,00 won on ○○ Trading Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○ Trading”); (c) had an aggregate of 662,478,00 won on 2,176,431,00 won on 2,00 kilograms; (d) had a total of 60 kilograms from 2,00 kilograms to ○○ Metal Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○ Metal”); and (e) had a total of 90 kilograms from 2,200 to 17, 200; and (e) had a total of 90,000 kilograms of value-added tax (hereinafter “foreign”).
(2) From March 11, 200 to October 18, 2000, the Plaintiff directly exported the gold processed goods amounting to KRW 1,897,504,194 (US$ 1,707,305.21) in total to ○○○○○ Jewferyco. LTD (hereinafter referred to as “○○○”) located in Hong Kong, and filed a report on the zero-rate tax rate for the pertinent sales by applying the zero-rate tax rate to the total amount of KRW 2,791,865,501 (hereinafter referred to as “○○○”) equivalent to KRW 226 kilograms of gold processed goods amounting to KRW 1,897,50 ($ 2,493,648.98).
(3) From October 23, 200 to December 28, 2000, the Plaintiff filed a return on the amount of KRW 29,263,195,00 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant tax invoice”) with a total of 34 tax invoices (hereinafter referred to as the “instant tax invoice”) that purchased 29,263,195,00 won from ○○ juice Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “○○”) and received total of 34 tax invoices.
C. The defendant's corrective disposition
① The Defendant: (a) determined that: (b) the Plaintiff’s purchase approval 200 won for the first period 4,269,684,000, the supply price of the instant transaction, 200 won + 2,176,431,000 won + 662,478,000 won + 200 won for the second period 961,150,000 won for the second period 200, 2000, 2000, 2000, 200, 300,000 won for the first period 20,000,000 won for the first period 20,000,000 won for the purchase approval 20,000 won for the first period 20,000,000 won for the direct export of the Plaintiff’s processed goods, 20,000 won for the first period 20,0000 won for the second year 20, 29636,3636,06.
2. Relevant statutes;
The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.
3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The part concerning the purchase approval
(1) The parties' assertion
(A) The plaintiff
The purchase approval letter presented to the Plaintiff by the Plaintiff is a purchase approval letter issued by the head of foreign exchange bank, which is a reliable agency, and only the Plaintiff believed and supplied it to the Plaintiff, and there was no public offering as to the illegal issuance of the sales office and the purchase approval letter, and the Plaintiff was unaware of the fact that the instant transaction was related to the evasion of value-added tax. Thus, the current purchase approval letter supplied to the Plaintiff based on the purchase approval letter is subject to zero tax.
(B) Defendant
The Plaintiff, while knowing that the letter of approval for purchase was illegally issued, conspired to evade the sales office and taxes of the instant case, or conducted the instant transaction with the knowledge that the sales office would not export the instant goods purchased from the Plaintiff. Thus, the instant transaction is not subject to zero tax rate.
(2) Determination
(A) In light of the relevant laws and regulations regarding zero-rate tax application, whether a supplier of goods has actually exported goods to a buyer shall not affect the application of zero-rate tax rate, and the defect that a purchase approval was issued by the head of a foreign exchange bank shall not be deemed to be null and void a year, but a purchase approval issued by the head of the foreign exchange bank shall not be deemed null and void a year, if the supplier and the buyer of the goods sold goods by applying zero-rate tax rate in collusion with each other, or the buyer knows that he/she uses a purchase approval under the intention to evade taxes by selling them in Korea without the purpose of export.
Therefore, we examine whether the Plaintiff applied the zero-rate tax rate to the instant transaction, knowing that the Plaintiff was either unlawfully issued a purchase approval in collusion with the instant seller or that the instant seller would sell it in Korea without export.
(B) The following facts may be acknowledged by integrating each description of evidence Nos. 5, 17, 19, 20, 23 through 25, 31, 38, 39, and 41 (including each number), and contrary thereto, the statement of evidence No. 57 and the testimony of the witness of the trial court ○○○ is not trustable.
1) Career of Plaintiff’s representative director and Plaintiff’s form of transaction
At the time of the instant transaction, New ○○○, a representative director of the Plaintiff, started the precious metal wholesale business in Busan in 193, and thereafter, had been aware of the transaction in the name of ○○○ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “○○○ Co., Ltd.”) and the Plaintiff (established July 5, 1999) and ○○○○ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “○○○○○ Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd. established on July 8, 2000; hereinafter referred to as “○○○”). New ○”) had been engaged in the wholesale business and export-import business in the current year when it had been engaged in sales and export-import business in the name of the new ○○ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “○○”) in the name of the new ○○ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “○○”) in the name of the new ○○ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “○○”).
2) Transaction with the seller of the instant case and distribution process after the date of the transaction
① On June 3, 200, the Plaintiff sold to ○ Metal the present price at zero tax rate of 60 kilograms and 17.75 kilograms of the same month. The purchase approval offered as the basis for zero-rate purchase was obtained through false export contract with ○○○ Jwelrrrrrrrrr. Meanwhile, ○ metal purchased the present price of 181,353,000,000 won from Plaintiff, ○○ Trade, ○○ ○○, ○○welrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr, etc. by the above method, and sold it to Korea, and ○○, the representative of ○○ was escape from Korea on July 200.
② As indicated below, the Plaintiff sold ○○ trade to the second wholesaler, and ○○ trade sold to the second wholesaler at zero tax rate.
(unit: kilogram, thousand won)
Quantity
○○○○ Plaintiff
Plaintiff ○○ Trade
○ ○ Trade & 2nd wholesalers
Amount
Amount
Sales Office
Amount
January 7, 2000
50
540,000
546,900
○○ Doice
54,000
January 10, 200
30
320,640
323,730
○ ○ Metal
327,300
January 11, 2000
20
213,860
215,940
○○ Doice
218,200
January 13, 2000
20
217,600
218,680
○ ○ Metal
20,860
January 17, 2000
50
538,933
544,700
○ ○ Metal
50,000
January 18, 2000
30
323,200
326,481
○○ Doice
329,220
oly 27, 2000
45
457,396
457,200
○○ Doice
458,415
November 7, 2000
50
501,966
503,950
○○ Doice
505,350
Total
295
3,113,595
3,137,581
3,163,345
○○ Trade purchased the above currently at zero tax rate on the basis of a letter of approval for purchase illegally issued through a false export contract, etc., and sold to the second wholesaler as it is at zero tax rate immediately, and the second wholesaler sold all of the above at zero tax rate to Korea.
③ The Plaintiff sold ○ Metal to ○ Metal, and ○○ Metal Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “○○○”) at zero-rate tax rate, as listed below.
(unit: kilogram, thousand won)
○○ ? Plaintiff
Plaintiff
? ○ metal
○ ○ Metal ? ○○ juice
Quantity
Amount
Quantity
Amount
Quantity
Amount
January 19, 2000
30
327,600
30
30,618
60
66,264
January 21, 2000
30
328,800
30
31,860
Total
60
656,400
60
662,478
○○ Metal only lent its name to an enterprise established through ○○○○○, the representative of ○○ juice, and was an enterprise with no capacity to purchase the present from the Plaintiff. The details of the transaction of ○○ Metal in January 2000 are all the transactions. The purchase approval offered by ○○ metal as the basis for zero-rate purchase was a secondary purchase approval issued by using a purchase approval letter which was issued on the basis of a false export contract. Meanwhile, the purchase approval letter which was issued on the basis of zero-rate purchase was a secondary purchase approval letter which was issued on the basis of a false export contract. Meanwhile, the ○○ metal, ○○, etc. purchased from ○○ metal, ○○, ○○, etc. was taxed in Korea, and the ○○ metal was also closed on December 31, 200.
④ At present, the Plaintiff sold zero tax rate as the instant transaction without going through the instant sales office, etc., it was directly transported from the said ○ metal, ○○○ juice, ○○ ○○ metal, and ○ juice to a taxable business entity that purchased the instant transaction on the same day, and the transaction price was conducted on the same day. The transaction price was first transferred by the purchasing business entity through a pre-payment method that the sales company transfers the price to the sales business entity.
⑤ The above ○ Metal (OOM on April 15, 200 - October 14, 2000) was all accused of the evasion of value-added tax on the above sales, on the grounds that ○○ Metal (OOM) (OOM) (OOM), OM (OM) (OOM), OM (OM (OOM) (OOM) (OM (OOM) (OM (OOM) (OM (OM) (OOM) were evaded.
(iii) omission of issuance of a certificate of partition for tax refund;
① In light of the fact that an importer who is currently importing for export is obligated to pay 3% of the customs duties at the time of import, and at the time of the final export, the exporter is entitled to refund the customs duties. Thus, in the event that the importer sells goods without directly exporting for the present time, it is common to issue a certificate of subdivision from the customs office to the purchaser so that the purchaser can receive the refund of the customs duties separately from the value of the goods.
② However, the Plaintiff paid an amount equivalent to KRW 247,917,445, which is about 3% of the purchase amount of KRW 8,285,784,801 as at the present purchase price from ○○○○, and received a divisional certificate, but only delivered a divisional certificate to only a part of the transaction amount with ○○ Metal (63,074,965 won) out of KRW 5,230,834,000 of the transaction amount of this case and received a divisional certificate, and did not issue a divisional certificate with respect to ○○ Metal and ○○ trade (the grounds for issuance of a divisional certificate with respect to the transaction with ○○ Metal are that the ○○ Metal was an enterprise selling zero-rate metals to ○○○○○, and was not a final sales enterprise. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff did not receive a divisional certificate of payment of an amount equivalent to the customs duty amount to ○○, a final sales enterprise).
(C) The following circumstances revealed in light of the above facts, i.e., ① the sales office of this case purchased defective certificates of approval for purchase based on false export contracts, etc. from the Plaintiff for a short-term period of time, and then illegally distributed them to the Republic of Korea without exporting them; ② the Plaintiff’s transaction of this case is conducted at the present shipping office on the day of the transaction of the current sales office, and the transaction price is transferred in advance. These series of transactions are hard to be seen as having been conducted without prior public invitation or awareness, ③ since new ○○○○, a representative director of the Plaintiff, was aware of the fact that the sales office of this case purchased new certificates of profit-added tax, and thus, it cannot be seen that the Plaintiff did not receive the certificate of profit-added tax from the sales office for the purpose of the sale of this case.
(D) Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s sales of this case to Korea without export purposes constitutes a case where it was aware of the fact that the Plaintiff had purchased the goods at present using a written purchase approval under the intent to evade taxes. Thus, it is lawful to exclude the application of zero-rate tax rate to the part related to the written purchase approval from the disposition of this case.
B. Determination on direct export part
(1) The parties' assertion
(A) The plaintiff
The direct export portion of this case is a normal export that is exported to ○○○ and ○○ System after the Plaintiff filed an export declaration with the head of the competent customs office, and received the export payment, and thus is subject to zero-rate tax rate.
(B) Defendant
Since it is unclear whether the ○○○ and ○○ System, the other party to the direct export of this case, is the actual product, and it is also unclear whether the exported goods of the Plaintiff are processed products, the direct export portion of this case shall be deemed not to have been exported and excluded from the application of zero-rate
(2) Facts of recognition
The following facts may be recognized by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the evidence Nos. 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 17, 19, 23, 29, 30, 34, 42, 43, 45, 48, and the evidence Nos. 10 (including each number), and the statement Nos. 7, 8, 11, 12, 34 (including each number), are insufficient to reverse the statement, and there is no other counter-proof.
(A) From March 11, 200 to October 18, 2000, the Plaintiff reported the export of the gold products equivalent to KRW 1,897,504,194 won to ○○○○ 167 kilograms, and the gold products equivalent to KRW 226 kilograms to ○○ ○○ ○○ ○ ○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
(B) During the period from July 2001 to August 2002, the head of Seoul Customs Office had conducted a tax investigation on the Plaintiff’s direct export portion. At the time, the Plaintiff failed to obtain evidence that the exported goods were not processed gold products, and even ○○○○○○ system-based company was exported to Hong Kong and cleared down, there was a fact that the Plaintiff was a non-suspect of disguised export suspicion against the Plaintiff on the ground that the export itself was not denied even in the case of ○○○○ system-based company.
(C) Meanwhile, in relation to the direct export portion of this case on September 15, 2004, new ○○ filed a false declaration as if it were exported of gold bullion products from raw materials for foreign exchange earnings to ○○○ and ○○○○○○ System, and the fact was charged on charges of “the fact that the Defendant evaded value-added tax and received the refund of customs duties through domestic sales.” However, the Seoul ○ District Court acquitted the Defendant on the grounds that there was no proof of crime on December 15, 2005, and all appeals and appeals against the above judgment became final and conclusive.
(3) Determination
In this regard, the plaintiff has the responsibility to prove that the plaintiff did not export the direct export portion of this case and distributed it domestically. Thus, even if the actual importer of the direct export portion of this case could be a third party, not the ○○○○ and ○○ System, the nominal owner of the export contract, and the actual export goods have not been verified, it cannot be readily concluded that the direct export portion of this case was distributed in Korea without being exported immediately, and rather, the plaintiff exported the same quantity of products after filing an export declaration on the amount of processed gold products corresponding to the direct export portion of this case, and the goods were cleared through customs in Hong Kong, and the amount equivalent to the price of the goods was deposited to the plaintiff, etc., the plaintiff is more likely to have actually exported the direct export portion of this case.
Therefore, barring special circumstances, the part concerning direct export of the instant disposition is unlawful.
C. The processed tax invoice part
(1) The plaintiff's assertion
The plaintiff actually purchased the tax invoice of this case from ○○ through the Internet banking, paid the purchase price through the Internet banking, etc., and sold the purchase price to ○○ gift, etc.
(2) Facts of recognition
The following facts are either disputed between the parties, or acknowledged by Gap evidence Nos. 5, 37, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 13, 14, 21, and 37 (including each number), by integrating the whole purport of the pleadings, and contrary to this, Gap evidence No. 50 is not believed.
(A) Around September 2000, ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, which was prepared by the ○○○○○○○○○○○○, and carried out the affairs as instructed by the ○○○○○, by filing an application for a purchase approval.
(B) By using the above false export contract as well as the purchase approval, etc. issued using it, ○○○ ”○○ ”○ ”T” purchased zero tax rate of KRW 70,078,00 in total from October 1, 200 to the supply price of KRW 59,87,713,00 in total from five enterprises including the Plaintiff, and then delivered 72 tax invoices (34 tax invoices for the Plaintiff total supply price of KRW 29,263,195,00 in total), and then closed the pertinent value-added tax as of November 30, 200 without paying the value-added tax.
(C) With respect to successive transactions with the Plaintiff, ○○○, ○○, ○○ trade, ○○ △△△, and with respect to tax invoices and transport documents, ○○ trade purchased the present date which was released from ○○○ on the same day and sold it to ○○○○○ on the same day, and then sold it to the Plaintiff on the same day, and paid the price. However, the present date that was shipped out from ○○○ was transported to the Plaintiff without undergoing ○○ trade and ○○ △△△△ upon the request of ○○ trade.
(D) The sales of the Plaintiff, purchased at KRW 10,420.6 per g from ○ trade, was reported to have been sold to the Plaintiff at KRW 9,987.4 per g below the price, and the ○○ jum transferred all the value-added tax amount payable to the tax office out of the amount remitted by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff to the ○ trade.
(E) On June 2001, the head of the ○○ Tax Office accused Do○, ○○, and ○ju-ice as a crime of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act on the grounds that he/she evaded taxes as data, such as purchasing a tax invoice without any actual transaction (i.e., purchase of the tax invoice) (i., the case was suspended by prosecution, but the case was affirmed on a separate suspicion of selling the gold bullion imported as raw materials for foreign exchange earnings for domestic sales).
(3) Determination
(A) The following facts revealed in light of the above facts, i.e., ① a company established with a nominal representative director, and closed its business on a short-term (three months). ② The transportation document of this case includes the transport route at ○○ through ○○ trade and ○○ ju Ri, but in fact, at the present delivery from ○○○ upon ○○’s request for ○ trade, it was transported directly to the Plaintiff without undergoing ○○ trade or ○○ juice, and the transaction amount was remitted on the day. If the transaction amount was a normal transaction amount, the transaction amount is deemed to have been remitted to ○○ ju Ri as it appears to have been only a nominal trading company, and ③ it is sufficient to find the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff as the actual transaction price without considering the above facts as follows:
(B) As to this, the Plaintiff claims that the sales price received from ○ Futures Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “○○ Futures”) was actually deposited into ○○△△△△△, and that the current sales of ○○ Futures again purchased from ○△△△△△, and accordingly, according to each description of Dop, Nos. 3, 4, 6, and 37 (including each number), it can be recognized that the purchase price was deposited in the Plaintiff’s deposit account at the time of the Plaintiff’s deposit account and the said money was again remitted to ○○○○○○○○○○○. However, in light of the fact that there are many cases where the purchase price was deposited in the Plaintiff’s deposit account and the fact that it was recognized above, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is insufficient to reverse the fact that the transaction between the Plaintiff and ○△△△ constitutes a false transaction.
(C) Therefore, the part of the processing tax invoice in the instant disposition is lawful.
(d) The calculation of justifiable taxes;
Therefore, if a reasonable tax amount is calculated by applying the zero-rate tax rate for direct exports, 673,437,150 won, as stated in the column of "justifiable Tax Amount" in the "Calculation of the 1st value-added Tax Amount of 2000", and 2nd value-added tax in 2000 shall be 4,397,642,197 won, as stated in the column of "justifiable Tax Amount of 2nd value-added Tax Amount of 2000."
4. Conclusion
Therefore, the part of the disposition of this case which exceeds the above legitimate tax amount is illegal. Thus, the part of the plaintiff's claim of this case which exceeds the legitimate tax amount is justified, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is partially unfair in conclusion, the defendant's appeal against the value-added tax for the first time in 2000 and the second time value-added tax for the second time in 200 shall be accepted in part and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be modified as per Disposition
Attached Table 1
The computation details of value-added tax for 1 year 2000
(unit: Won)
Classification
Amount initially reported;
Correction Decision
Amount of increase or decrease
Amount of taxation revenue
26,44,046,655
32,713,370,883
6,269,324,228
zero-rate sales
6,573,183,561
303,859,33
△△6,269,324,228
Total Sales
3,017,230,216
3,017,230,216
Tax Rate
10%
10%
Sales amount
2,644,404,665
3,271,337,088
626,932,423
Purchase Tax Amount
2,708,100,348
2,708,100,348
Vehicle reduction meters
△△63,695,683
563,236,740
626,932,423
Additional Dues
355,849,069
355,849,069
Amount of tax credit
△△63,695,683
△△63,695,683
Amount of tax notified after deduction
982,781,490
982,781,490
Attached Table 2
The computation details of the value-added tax for No. 2000
(unit: Won)
Classification
Amount initially reported;
Correction Decision
Amount of increase or decrease
Amount of taxation revenue
69,538,440,334
72,429,243,154
2,890,802,820
zero-rate sales
3,367,446,134
476,643,314
△△△,890,802,820
Total Sales
72,905,886,468
72,905,886,468
Tax Rate
10%
10%
Sales amount
6,953,844,033
7,242,924,315
2,890,802,820
Purchase Tax Amount
6,953,218,492
4,026,898,992
△△△,926,319,500
Vehicle reduction meters
625,541
3,216,025,323
3,215,399,782
Additional Dues
433,279
1,589,175,201
1,588,741,922
Amount of tax credit
1,058,820
1,058,820
Amount of tax notified after deduction
4,804,141,700
4,804,141,700
Attached Table 3
The details of the legitimate assessment of the value-added tax for 1 year 200
(unit: Won)
Classification
Correction Decision
Justifiable Tax Amount
Amount of increase or decrease
Amount of taxation revenue
32,713,370,883
30,713,730,655
△△△,99,640,228
zero-rate sales
303,859,33
2,303,49,561
1,99,640,228
Total Sales
3,017,230,216
3,017,230,216
Tax Rate
10%
10%
Sales amount
3,271,337,088
3,071,373,065
△△△199,964,023
Purchase Tax Amount
2,708,100,348
2,708,100,348
Vehicle reduction meters
563,236,740
363,272,717
△△△199,964,023
Additional Dues
355,849,069
246,468,750*
△△△109,380,319
Amount of tax credit
△△63,695,683
△△63,695,683
Amount of tax notified after deduction
982,781,490
673,437,150
△△△309,344,340
* Additional Tax Calculation Details
Additional tax on the negligent tax invoice by buyer: 4,269,684,00 X 2/100 = 85,393,680
Additional tax on negligent tax returns: 426,968,40 X 10/100 = 42,696,840
Additional dues: 18,378,230
(1) For the first period of January 200: 283,890,900 (○○ Metal, ○○ Trade) X 5/10,00 X 585 (from April 26, 200 to December 1, 2001) = 83,038,088
(2) For the first period of January 200: 143,077,500 (00 metal) X 5/10,000 X 494 (from July 26, 2000 to December 1, 2001) = 35,340,142
Additional tax: 246,468,750
Attached Table 4
The details of the legitimate assessment of value-added tax at No. 2000
(unit: Won)
Classification
Correction Decision
Justifiable Tax Amount
Amount of increase or decrease
Amount of taxation revenue
72,429,243,154
70,499,590,334
△△△,929,652,820
zero-rate sales
476,643,314
2,406,296,134
1,929,652,820
Total Sales
72,905,886,468
72,905,886,468
Tax Rate
10%
10%
Sales amount
7,242,924,315
7,049,959,033
△△△192,965,282
Purchase Tax Amount
4,026,898,992
4,026,898,992
Vehicle reduction meters
3,216,025,323
3,023,060,041
△△△192,965,282
Additional Dues
1,589,175,201
1,375,640,976*
△△△213,534,225
Amount of tax credit
1,058,820
1,058,820
Amount of tax notified after deduction
4,804,141,700
4,397,642,197
△△△ 406,499,507
* Additional Tax Calculation Details
Additional tax on the negligence by buyer: 961,150,00 X 2/100 = 19,223,000
Additional tax on unfaithful tax invoice by customer: 29,263,195,00 X 2/100 = 585,263,900
Additional tax on negligent tax returns: 3,022,434,50 X 10/100 = 302,243,450
Additional tax for unfaithful payment: 3,022,434,50 (○○ Trade, ○○ Purpose) X 5/10,000 X 310 = 468,477,347
Additional tax on initial rectification: 433,279
Additional Tax: 1,375,640,976
Relevant statutes
Article 11 of the Value-Added Tax Act
(1) The tax rates of the Cabinet shall apply to the supply of goods or services in the following subparagraphs:
1. Exported goods;
○ Correction of Article 21 of the Value-Added Tax Act
(1) The head of a district tax office having jurisdiction over a place of business, the Commissioner of the competent Regional Tax Office or the Commissioner of the National Tax Service shall correct the tax base or tax amount payable for the taxable period
1. Where the final tax return is not filed;
2. Where there are any mistakes or omissions in details of the final tax return;
3. Where the list of the total tax invoice by buyer or the total tax invoice by buyer is not submitted in the final tax return, or all or part of the submitted list of the total tax invoice by buyer is not entered or
4. Where the value-added tax is likely to be dodged due to the causes as determined by the Presidential Decree other than subparagraphs 1 through 3.
(2) Where the head of a district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of business, the head of a regional tax office having jurisdiction over the place of business or the Commissioner of the National Tax Service revises the tax base and amount of refund for each taxable period pursuant to paragraph (1), he/she shall correct it based on tax invoices, books and other evidence
1. Where tax invoices, books, and other evidence necessary for calculating the tax base do not exist or important parts are incomplete;
2. Where the contents of tax invoices, books, and other documentary evidence are obviously false in light of the scale of facilities, the number of employees, and the market prices of raw materials, commodities, products, or various charges;
3. Where the contents of tax invoices, account books, and other documentary evidence are obviously false in light of the quantity of raw materials used, power used, and other operational conditions.
(3) Where any error or omission is found in the tax base and tax amount paid or refundable in accordance with paragraphs (1) and (2), the head of the competent district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of business, the Commissioner of the competent Regional Tax Office
Article 24 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17186 of March 31, 2001)
(1) The export provided for in Article 11 (1) 1 of the Act shall be a shipment of domestic goods (including marine products caught by Korean vessels) from a foreign country.
(2) The exported goods under Article 11 (1) 1 of the Act shall be deemed to include the following goods:
1. Goods supplied by a businessman by a local letter of credit or letter of approval for purchase; and
2. Goods supplied by a project operator to the Korea International Cooperation Agency under the Korea International Cooperation Agency Act (limited to cases where the Korea International Cooperation Agency takes out the goods without compensation in foreign countries for the projects under Article 7 of the said Act); and
Article 69 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17186, Mar. 31, 2001)
(1) Estimated correction under the proviso to Article 21 (2) of the Act shall be governed by the following methods:
1. The method of calculating by way of a type of sphere with other partners in the same trade who have not been corrected under the provisions of Article 21 (1) of the Act because the account books are deemed to be correct and the report is bona fide;
2. Where there exists any production ratio surveyed by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service with respect to input raw materials by industry, the method of calculating by applying the market price of the quantity supplied during the relevant taxation period to the production amount
3. Where the Commissioner of the National Tax Service has business efficiency which determines the relationship between the quantity and value of human and material facilities (employee, guest rooms, places of business, vehicles, water supply, electricity, etc.) related to the business and the sales, the method of calculating by applying such business.
4. Calculation method by any of the following criteria determined by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service by type of business and by region:
(a) Input quantity per unit of won, which determines the relationship between the partial or whole quantity, from among the raw or secondary materials input for production, and the quantity of production;
(b) A cost-related ratio which determines the relationship between all or part of the personnel expenses, rent, material expenses, water, mineral heat, and other operating expenses and sales;
(c) A commodities turnover rate which determines the relationship between the average stored amount during a fixed period and the sales amount or the sales price;
(d) A sales profit rate which determines the ratio of the sales to the gross sales profit during a fixed period;
(e) The value-added rate determined by the sales amount and value-added amount during a fixed period.
Article 9-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 193 on April 3, 2001)
(1) The term "local letter of credit referred to in Articles 24 (2) 1 and 26 (1) 2 of the Decree means a letter of credit which is opened by the head of a foreign exchange bank within the taxable period whereto belongs the time of supply for goods or services, where an entrepreneur wishes to be supplied with raw materials for export or for export or for export or for export goods processing services in Korea
(2) A letter of approval for purchase referred to in Article 24 (2) 1 of the Decree means a letter of approval issued by the head of a foreign exchange bank within the taxable period to which the time of supply for goods belongs, in accordance with a
Article 9 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Refund of Customs Duties, etc. Levied on Raw Materials for Export
(1) When any goods are offered for export, the head of a customs office shall refund customs, etc. levied on raw materials for export of the relevant goods imported within two years retroactively from the date prescribed by Presidential Decree.
Article 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Refund of Customs Duties, etc. Levied on Raw Materials for Export (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17791 of Dec. 5, 2002) shall calculate the period of transactions by local letters of credit
(2) The head of a customs office may issue a document certifying the amount of customs duties, etc. on the goods transacted in an import (referring to purchase in the course of transactions under a local letter of credit, etc.)
(3) Any person who intends to have a document attesting the amount of customs duties, etc. payable under paragraph (2) issued shall file an application stating the following matters with the head of the competent customs office:
1. Transferor and transferee;
2. Transfer date;
3. The name and specification of the goods;
4. The quantity and tax amount to be transferred.
5. Other matters necessary for the certification of the tax amount payable, as determined by the Commissioner of the Customs Service.
The definitions of the terms used in the public notice of the definitions of Article 1-1-2 of the Public Notice of the Refund of Customs Duties, etc. on Raw Materials for Export shall be as follows:
3. The term "division certificate" means a certificate of import declaration, certificate of ordinary duties, or certificate of payment by installments (hereinafter referred to as "certificate") in order to certify the amount of tax payable on the goods imported or purchased in the original condition;
Notice No. 4-3-1 of the Notice on the Handling of Refund Affairs, such as Customs Duties, etc. on Raw Materials for Export
Cases where a certificate may be issued pursuant to Article 10 (2) of the Decree shall be as follows:
1. Where raw materials are transferred in the state of import or purchase of raw materials to an exporter or a producer of export goods or a person who produces interim raw materials to be used in producing export goods;
3. Where a transferee of raw materials provided for in Article 4-2-1(1) has transferred them in the same manner as subparagraph 1 has been purchased. The end.