Cho-2015-China-4906 ( February 24, 2016)

Subsidies for terminal devices shall be applicable to sales discount.

Since the amount equivalent to subscription fees, etc. is not included in the value of supply of a device or is 'the discount amount for sales' which is directly related to the supply of a device, it is reasonable to view that it should be excluded from the value-added tax base for the supply of a device.

Article 29 of the Value-Added Tax Act

District Court 2016Guhap8352

The Bank shall be 00

000 director of the tax office

January 10, 2017

February 7, 2017

1. The value-added tax imposed on the Plaintiff on June 16, 2015 by the Defendant for the second period of two years, 2013, 109,248,948;

Each disposition of imposition of KRW 98,918,312 for the first term of January 2014, and KRW 200,984,472 for the second term of February 2014.

(w).

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant

Cheong-gu Office

The "transfer income tax" is the same as the order (the "transfer income tax" of the amended purport of the claim and the grounds of the claim).

It is obvious that it is a clerical error)

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff’s attraction and management of mobile communications service subscribers from a stock company of 0000

A personal car purchased on credit by being entrusted with business affairs, etc., and 0000 Ss stock companies, etc.

The plaintiff has sold chemical devices to mobile communications subscribers. From 2010 to 2014, the plaintiff paid the subscriber subsidies by way of paying the subscription fee, the USIM card fee, and the serial mobile fee to the original subscriber to the stock company 000.

B. The Plaintiff reported and paid value-added tax from January 2010 to February 2014:

In the installment sales of the device, the Plaintiff deducted the subscription fee for the mobile communications that the Plaintiff paid.

C. The Defendant’s subscription fees, etc. for mobile communications paid by the Plaintiff from the tax base for the mobile communications transaction.

On June 16, 2015, with regard to the Plaintiff on January 16, 2015, the amount of KRW 175,354,60 for the first term in 2010, KRW 205,90,920 for the second term in 2010, KRW 190,894,360 for the first term in 2011, KRW 174,607,720 for the second term in 2011, KRW 310,731,470 for the first term in 2012, KRW 451,463,00 for the second term in 2012, KRW 194,749, KRW 170 for the first term in 2013, KRW 125,170 for the second term in 2013, KRW 200 for the second term in 204, KRW 197, KRW 2081 for the second term in 20.

D. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on September 11, 2015, and on December 2014.

2. The Plaintiff paid by the Tax Tribunal to August 6, 2013 was excluded from the tax base to rectify the tax base and tax amount and dismissed the remainder of the appeal.

E. The Defendant shall make a decision by the said Tax Tribunal on February 24, 2016, thereby adding increased value as stated in the foregoing paragraph (c).

From January 2010 to February 2013, the part concerning the subscription fee, etc. for the mobile communications (hereafter referred to as the " subscription fee, etc. in this case") paid from August 7, 2013 to February 2014 was revoked. As a result, in relation to the subscription fee, etc. for the two-term period from August 7, 2013 to February 2014.

Value-added tax of KRW 109,248,948, KRW 98,918,312, and KRW 200,984,472 for two years in 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the entrance fee, etc. in this case constitutes "amount to be reduced under Article 29 (5) 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act", "the so-called "amount of discount in sales", it should be excluded from the value-added tax base.

(c)

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) In cases where an agent, with respect to the questioning of a tax office in which the Ministry of Strategy and Finance and the Value-Added Tax System and the Value-Added Tax System subsidize part of the installment sales amount in cash, in selling a device purchased from a mobile communications company to a customer by installment contract, the tax base shall be the amount not deducted from the installment sales amount that the agent provided to the customer in cash. The tax base shall be the amount not deducted from the amount of installment sales amount. The previous rules and regulations of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance (reconsumption-295, March 15, 2004) are amended to the effect

The evidence mentioned in the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes and the evidence stated in Gap's Nos. 3 and 4

(i) the consumption tax imposed on the consumption of goods or services, i.e., the following:

The tax base of value shall be the price actually paid by the final consumer of goods or services.

F. The price actually paid to the Plaintiff by the account holder in the instant terminal supply transaction is short

The ex-factory price of the horse (if the mobile communications company satisfies the requirements for the provision of the contract subsidy determined, the subscriber);

In comparison, when the Plaintiff concludes a contract for the supply of a device as in this case and makes an agreement to pay the user at Dong Dong Dong Dong Dong Dong Dong Dong Dong Dong Dong Dong Dong, the economic substance of both parties is the same, so it is reasonable to regard the amount calculated by deducting the amount equivalent to the subscription fee in this case from the factory price less the amount equivalent to the subscription fee in this case, etc., as the supply price of the device, as the final consumer of the device is aware of the amount obtained by subtracting the amount equivalent to the subscription fee in this case, etc., from the subscription fee in this case. 3) In comparison, when concluding the contract for the supply of the device as in this case, the Plaintiff sells the device by determining the supply price from the factory price less the amount equivalent to the subscription fee in this case, etc., the economic substance of the two parties is the same. Thus, it is consistent with the principle of substantial taxation to regard the amount obtained from the factory price less the amount equivalent to the subscription fee in this case as the price for the supply of the device.

Admission fees, etc. in this case solely on the ground that the subsidy was paid by substitute payment of subscription fees, etc.

5) Article 29(6) of the Value-Added Tax Act

The so-called "sales incentive" is to promote the business without connection with the individual transaction or the price thereof.

Money or valuables paid to the counterpart to the transaction and generally not an intermediate distributor;

In light of the fact that the amount equivalent to the entrance fee, etc. of this case is not included in the supply price of the device, or that the amount equivalent to the entrance fee, etc. of this case is not included in the supply price of the device, the purpose of the payment, the object of the payment, and the relation to the sale of the device, etc., it is difficult to view that the amount falls under the incentive not deducted from the tax base, and 6) the questioning reply with the planning and finance department on August 7, 2013 is not effective as an external binding law, and there is no reasonable ground to deal differently with each other in the supply transaction of the device before and after the questioning, it is reasonable to view that the amount equivalent to the entrance fee, etc. of this case paid by the plaintiff should be excluded from the value-added tax base for the mobile device supply transaction.

Therefore, the value-added tax base for the mobile device supply transaction equivalent to the purchase cost of this case

The disposition of this case, which calculated the tax amount, is unlawful, and the plaintiff's assertion pointing this out is with merit.

The amount of the plaintiff's output tax in view of the amount equivalent to the purchase cost of this case as "the sales cumulative amount".

If the input tax amount is reduced, the same amount is reduced, and there is no effect on the value-added tax.

this assertion, however, is alleged to be that the mobile communications company provides subscribers with an agreed subsidy.

provided that the value of the terminal supply between the telecommunications company and the agency is reduced by the amount of the agreed subsidy;

The amount equivalent to the purchase fee of this case shall be deducted from the purchase tax invoice received by the plaintiff.

This case is not applicable to this case.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is justified.