early 2012 Mine034 (O2, 2012)

If a taxi transportation business entity fails to pay the reduced tax to a transport employee within the statutory deadline, an amount equivalent to the reduced tax shall be collected.

A transport business operator who has been reduced of value-added tax shall pay the full amount of the reduced tax to a general taxi driver within one month from the end of the payment deadline for the final return of value-added tax, and where a transport business operator fails to pay the full amount of the reduced tax within statutory

Article 106-7 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

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

XX Limited Partnership Company

The director of Gwangju Tax Office

September 6, 2012

October 11, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 000 against the Plaintiff on July 4, 2011 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company that is established on June 28, 1979 and runs a general taxi transport business in the Dong-gu, Gwangju Metropolitan City under XX 129.

B. On March 17, 2011, the head of the Dong-gu Gwangju Metropolitan City notified the Defendant of the fact that the Plaintiff was exempted from value-added tax for the second term portion for the year 2010 pursuant to Article 106-7(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 111133, Dec. 31, 201; hereinafter the same) and the Plaintiff was not paid to the transport employees by February 25, 2011, which is within one month from the end of the payment deadline for the final return of value-added tax.

C. On July 4, 2011, the Defendant applied Article 106-7(3) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act to the Plaintiff, imposing a disposition on the Plaintiff, imposing the amount of the reduced value-added tax, the amount equivalent to the interest accrued therefrom, and the amount of the additional tax

D. On September 14, 201, the Defendant confirmed that the Plaintiff paid KRW 000 out of the value-added tax reduction amount to the transport employees, and issued ex officio a reduction of KRW 000 (including additional tax of KRW 000) by reducing the amount of KRW 000 (i.e., KRW 000 - KRW 000) (hereinafter the Plaintiff’s amount of value-added tax reduction (=00 000 -00) accrued to the Plaintiff), and “the instant tax reduction amount”; and the Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax against the Plaintiff on July 4, 2011, hereinafter “the instant disposition”).

E. On December 20, 201, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal on December 20, 201, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s request on March 12, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 2 and 3 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Even if the Plaintiff failed to pay the reduced amount to transport employees by February 25, 201, within one month from the end of the deadline for the final return of value-added tax payment, the amount of value-added tax reduction for the first term portion for the year 2010 was fully paid to transport employees within six months from the end of the deadline for the final return and payment, which is the deadline for payment. However, from the second term portion for the year 2010, the Special Tax Treatment Control Act amended and implemented that the amount of value-added tax reduction for the second term portion for the year 2010 should be paid within one month from the end of the deadline for the final return and payment, the Plaintiff intended to make up for the shortage of preparation and the period for payment due to the difficult financial resources of the company at the time. The Plaintiff’s preliminary return of value-added tax reduction amount for the second term portion for the second term portion for the year 2010 between transport employees on March 13, 2011 and the final return by April 25, 2011>

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Article 106-7 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that a general taxi transport business entity shall reduce 90/100 of the amount of the value-added tax payable for the general taxi transport business entity (Article 106-7). A transport business entity subject to the reduction of value-added tax shall pay the full amount of the reduced tax to the general taxi transport business entity in cash within one month from the end of the payment deadline for the final return of value-added tax (Article 2). If a transport business entity fails to pay the full amount of the reduced tax within the statutory deadline, the amount equivalent to the reduced tax amount shall be additionally collected (Article 106-7). The purport of the above provision is to promote the improvement of treatment and welfare of transport business entities

2) In order to reduce the value-added tax on the instant case by reducing the amount of tax reduction and exemption for regular taxi transport business operators, the general taxi transport business operator shall pay the full amount of the reduced tax amount to the transport business operator within the statutory period. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff can recognize that the reduced tax amount of the instant case was not paid even at the time of the instant disposition beyond the payment period and the payment period stipulated in Article 106-7(2) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act and the period agreed with the transport business operators, and the instant disposition was conducted to punish the Plaintiff who neglected to pay the amount to the transport business employees despite the reduction of the value-added tax as above. Therefore, even considering the various circumstances asserted by the Plaintiff, the public interest to be achieved by the instant disposition cannot be said to be less than the disadvantage suffered by the Plaintiff.

Therefore, there is no illegality that the disposition of this case deviates from or abused discretionary power.

3. Conclusion

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