early 2014 Heavy0427 ( March 10, 2014)

Where the tax invoice is proved to be fraudulent, the taxpayer shall prove the actual transaction.

The fact that the supplier in the tax invoice was not aware of the fact that the supplier was the nominal owner, and that there was no negligence, and that the transaction with the supplier stated in the tax invoice claimed by the taxpayer was proved to be false, the taxpayer must prove the actual transaction.

Article 16 (Tax Invoice)

2014Guhap5309 Disposition to revoke the imposition of value-added tax

KimA

Head of Si Tax Office

April 29, 2015

June 3, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition disposition of the value-added tax No. 1 in July 12, 2013 against the Plaintiff on July 12, 2013 is revoked in all of the imposition disposition of the value-added tax No. 1 in 2011, the 2010, and the 1st value-added tax OO in 2012.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From July 1, 1991, the Plaintiff is a person who runs a scrap metal and non-ferrous wholesale business with the trade name "B Commercial Association".

B. The Plaintiff received each tax invoice that constitutes the first supply price in 201, the second supply price in 201, the first supply price in 201, and the first supply price in 2012 (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant tax invoice”) from KimD (hereinafter referred to as “the instant transaction party”), which operates its business with the trade name of “CCC,” and filed a return on value-added tax for the pertinent period with the Defendant by deducting the input tax amount under the said tax invoice from the output tax amount.

C. As a result of the tax investigation, the head of Echeon Tax Office determined that the instant transaction partner issued the processed tax invoice without real transactions, and notified the Defendant of this determination. Accordingly, on July 12, 2013, the Defendant: (a) considered the instant tax invoice as a tax invoice different from the fact that the supplier had deducted the relevant input tax amount from the output tax amount; and (b) revised and notified each of the Plaintiff on July 12, 2011, the value-added tax No. 1, 201, the Value-Added Tax OOO(including the additional tax) for the second year, and the Value-Added Tax OO(including the additional tax) for the first year, respectively (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. On December 12, 2013, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal. However, the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on March 10, 2014.

Facts without dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Since the Plaintiff purchased scrap metal and non-stock equivalent to the value of supply stated in the instant tax invoice from the customer of the instant transaction, and paid the price, it cannot be deemed that the instant tax invoice is a false tax invoice.

2) Even if the instant tax invoice was tax invoice different from the fact, the Plaintiff was not aware of the fact of the transaction partner’s name, and was not negligent in not knowing such fact.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Whether the instant tax invoice is false or not

A tax invoice submitted by a taxpayer subject to value-added tax as the basis for input tax deduction of input tax amount is prepared in a false manner without a real transaction, or is proved by a tax authority that the entries of a tax invoice are different from the fact, thereby disputing whether it is a real purchase or the authenticity of entries of a tax invoice. In a case where a transaction with a supplier stated in a tax invoice claimed by a taxpayer is proved to a considerable extent that it is false, a taxpayer who is easy to present data, such as account books and evidence, should prove that the transaction with the supplier stated in the tax invoice was actually conducted (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Du1439, Aug. 20,

In full view of Gap evidence Nos. 2, 10, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 9, witness KimD's testimony and the overall purport of the argument, the business partner of this case started its business on August 31, 2010 at OOO-dong O-dong 701-75, but moved its business to O-si 173 on June 3, 201. The place of business located at O-si was not equipped with high typology or measurement facilities as a church site. The business premises located at O-si did not appear to have been used as evidence of "the other transaction partner's purchase price" or "the other transaction partner's purchase price for E-E metal" without any other 'the other transaction partner' as evidence of 'the purchase price for E-E metal' or 'the other transaction partner' as 'the other transaction partner' that the plaintiff purchased typ metal from O-dong 2010 to 212.

According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the transaction partner of this case is an enterpriser who issued a false tax invoice without real transaction, and the tax invoice of this case received by the plaintiff from the transaction partner of this case also constitutes a false tax invoice, i.e., a false tax invoice entered by the supplier. Therefore, this part of

2) Whether the Plaintiff acted in good faith and without fault

The actual supplier and the supplier on a tax invoice may not deduct or refund the input tax amount unless there is any special circumstance that the supplier was unaware of the fact that the supplier was unaware of the fact that the supplier was unaware of the fact that the supplier was unaware of the fact that the supplier was unaware of the fact that the supplier was unaware of the fact that the supplier was not negligent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002). In this case, a person who asserts the deduction or refund of the input tax amount must prove that the supplier was unaware of the fact that the supplier was unaware of the fact that the supplier was not aware of the fact that the supplier was not aware of the fact that the supplier was unaware of the fact that the supplier was issued and delivered, the size and market price of the goods or services supplied, the specific route in which the goods or services were supplied, and the transaction practice in the relevant industry, if the recipient was sufficiently under the name of the supplier.

The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff was provided with the business registration certificate, KimD's identification card, copy of passbook, etc. before commencing the transaction with the transaction partner of this case, and confirmed the authenticity of the name and business registration number. However, such circumstance alone is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff was not aware of the fact that the tax invoice of this case was false, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, the circumstances revealed through the facts of recognition as seen earlier, i.e., ① the Plaintiff was engaged in the scrap metal and scrap metal wholesale business from July 1, 191. As such, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff was negligent, even though it was aware that the actual counterparty of the transaction was not the counterparty of the transaction, or that there was no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff was making active efforts to confirm whether the transaction partner of the case was a business operator who is able to supply the scrap metal, etc. by directly verifying the business place or business facilities of the transaction of the case, in light of the following: (a) the supply structure and distribution channel of the scrap metal from around July 1, 191; (b) the general form or method of transaction in the relevant industry; and (c) the actual situation and risk of transaction in the data; and (b) there was no circumstance to suspect that the transaction partner of the case was able to directly verify the location of the business place or business facilities of the transaction of the case; and (c) there was no need to investigate the doubt about the actual counterparty of the transaction.

3. Conclusion

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