According to the principle of substantial taxation, a person who substantially controls and manages the taxable object shall be the tax liability.

The nominal owner, not the nominal owner, shall be the person who substantially controls and manages the relevant taxable object in accordance with the substance over form principle, shall be the person liable for tax payment.

Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2016Guhap52051 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax, etc.

○ ○

○ Head of tax office

November 11, 2016

December 2, 2016

1. The Defendant’s value-added tax amounting to KRW 68,015,500 for the first term of October 14, 2015 for the Plaintiff on October 14, 2015 (Ga)

Each imposition of value-added tax (including penalty tax), 61,016,380 won (including penalty tax) for the second period of 2013; and

The imposition of global income tax of KRW 103,052,892 (including additional tax) shall be revoked in all.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The disposition of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 129,031,880 for the year 2013 as part of the purport of the claim was stated in the complaint, but it was stated that the plaintiff sought revocation of the disposition of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 129,031,80 for the year 2013

Each value-added tax was added to seek revocation of the disposition for imposition).

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From July 1, 2009 to ○○○○○○-ro, ○○○○○○○○, the Plaintiff processes electric wires and wires.

The name of "A" registered as a business owner of "A" closed on August 31, 2013 while running a business, such as manufacturing and processing business, etc.

is the same.

B. On October 14, 2015, the Defendant issued a notice of the purchase tax amount of KRW 392,450,000 (including additional tax) received by the Plaintiff from AB on July 24, 2013 and the purchase tax invoice of KRW 363,650,00 (hereinafter “each of the above purchase tax invoice”) received from KimCC on January 25, 2014 constituted a false tax invoice; and on October 14, 2015, the Defendant did not deduct the input tax amount related to each of the instant tax invoice, and did not include the total amount of the supply value in necessary expenses; and (1) issued a notice of the Plaintiff’s correction and notification of value-added tax of KRW 68,015,50 (including additional tax) and value-added tax of KRW 61,016,380 (including additional tax); and (2) a notice of global income tax for KRW 2013,370 (including additional tax).

C. On February 11, 2016, the Tax Tribunal filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal. The Tax Tribunal estimated the amount of income pursuant to Article 143 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act in relation to the imposition of global income tax of KRW 318,722,790 for the Plaintiff in 2013, and corrected the tax base and the amount of the tax, and the remainder of the appeal filed by the Plaintiff is dismissed. The Defendant corrected the total income tax of the Plaintiff in 2013 (including additional tax) to KRW 103,052,892 (including additional tax) for the total income tax of KRW 103,052,892 for the year 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “the remaining portion after comprehensive reduction of the imposition of the global income tax of KRW 318,722,790 for the year 2013 and the imposition of the global income tax of KRW 2013 for the same day” (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 3 to 6

Each entry, including lot number, hereinafter the same shall apply), the whole purport of the pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

The defendant asserts that "A is legitimate in the disposition of this case because it is either operated by the plaintiff or operated by at least the plaintiff and Cho Dodddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd

B. Determination

1) Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes declares the principle of substantial taxation by stipulating that “if the ownership of income, profit, property, act, or transaction subject to taxation is merely nominal and there is another person to whom such income, profit, property, act, or transaction belongs, the person to whom such income, profit, act, or transaction belongs shall be liable for tax payment.” Therefore, if there is a separate person who substantially controls and manages such income, profit, property, act, transaction, etc. different from the title to which such income, profit, act, or transaction belongs, the nominal owner on the ground of form or appearance shall not be the person to whom such income, etc. belongs, but the person who substantially controls and manages the relevant taxable object shall be the person to whom such income, etc. is liable for tax payment in accordance with the principle of substantial taxation. In addition, the determination of such case should be made by comprehensively taking into

Meanwhile, in principle, the tax authority bears the burden of proving the existence and the tax base of the taxation requirement. This also applies to a case where the tax authority contests that the nominal owner of the transaction, etc. and the actual owner of the transaction, etc. are different, barring any special circumstances, such as a separate legal provision converting the burden of proof. However, the fact that the tax authority considers the nominal owner of the business as the actual business operator and thus differs from the nominal owner of the transaction, etc., the ownership of the transaction, etc. and the substance of the transaction, etc., for which the taxation was imposed, requires the assertion and proof by the nominal owner of the business subject to the taxation. In such a case, the need for proof is sufficient to the extent that the judge would have a reasonable doubt about the fulfillment of the taxation requirement. As a result, it is unclear whether the substance of the transaction, etc. belongs to the nominal owner, and if it becomes impossible to have the judge conviction, then the disadvantage resulting therefrom remains back to the tax authority that bears the ultimate burden of proof

2) According to the evidence Nos. 5 and 7 evidence Nos. 5 and 7, it is recognized that AA’s business registration has been completed in the Plaintiff’s name, and that the bank account in the Plaintiff’s father DoD’s name was not used in connection with AA’s transaction, while the fact that A was traded through the bank account in the Plaintiff’s name was recognized.

3) However, considering the following circumstances: (a) the Plaintiff appeared to have been working in the name of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ University’s name and the overall purport of its statements and arguments, and (b) the Plaintiff appeared to have been working in the name of 23 years old at the time of the registration of the Plaintiff’s business (○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ University’s name) and was working in the name of 3○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ University’s name and 4. The Plaintiff appeared to have been working in the name of 6○○○○○○○○○ University’s name and 6. The Plaintiff did not appear to have been working in the name of 6○○○○○○○ University’s name and had been working in the name of 1st 6th 2nd 6th 3rd 201.

Therefore, the instant disposition is an illegal disposition against the substance over form principle.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted with due cause, and it is so decided as per Disposition.