logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 공사대가로 보아 과세한 금액을 일용근로자에게 지급한 것으로 보아 부가가치세 과세대상에서 제외할 수 있는지 여부(기각)
조세심판원 조세심판 | 2006-05-12 | 국심2006중0158 | 부가
[Case Number]

National High Court Decision 2006J 0158 (Law No. 12, 2006)

[Items]

Addition

[Types of Decision]

Dismissal

[Summary of Decision]

Since it is not proven that the issue amount has been paid to daily workers, the disposition imposing the value-added tax is reasonable because the issue amount is considered as the construction cost due to the supply of services.

[Related Acts]

Article 2 of the Value-Added Tax Act

【Disposition】

I dismiss the appeal.

【Reasoning】

1. Summary of disposition;

During the period of May 10, 2003 and October 20, 2003, the agency issued a notice of correction of value-added tax 12,289,070 for the second period of the second period of the year 2003 when the applicant filed a notice of correction of value-added tax 12,289,070 for the second period of the year 2003.

On January 10, 2006, the claimant appealed against this and filed an appeal for adjudication.

2. Opinions of the claimant and disposition agency;

A. The claimant's assertion

The claimant has entered into an employment contract with the off-request corporation and worked as the head of the working group managing the key construction work, and the key amount is to receive wages in lump sum as the representative of daily employed workers and to pay them to daily employed workers, not subject to value-added tax. The contract for construction participants is prepared and submitted by mistake from the cooperation cost of the off-request corporation at the time of the tax investigation at the request of a tax official, and its substance shall be deemed as the provision

In addition, considering the characteristics of the construction site where daily workers are not generalized and wages are paid in cash customarily, the disposition of imposing value-added tax is unfair on the ground that the claimant who fails to make business registration does not present evidence of wages paid to daily workers, deeming that the construction work was subcontracted and the construction work was subcontracted.

(b) Opinions of disposition agencies;

The claimant entered into a contract with the non-applicant corporation and carried out the key construction work, and the non-Claimant corporation did not submit a report on the performance of withholding taxes to the number of daily workers other than the claimant, and thus the disposition imposing the value-added tax is justified.

3. Hearing and determination

(a) Points in dispute;

Whether the object of value-added tax can be excluded from the object of taxation on the ground that the claimant has received the amount of tax imposed on the basis of the construction cost as the representative of the daily employed worker.

(b) Related statutes;

(1) A taxpayer under Article 2 of the Value-Added Tax Act

(1) A person who independently supplies goods (referring to the goods prescribed in Article 1; hereinafter the same shall apply) or services (referring to the services prescribed in Article 1; hereinafter the same shall apply) on a business basis, regardless of whether it is for profit-making purposes, shall be liable to pay value-added taxes pursuant to this Act.

(2) Article 7 of the Value-Added Tax Act

(1) The supply of services shall be either the supply of services or having others use the goods, facilities or rights, pursuant to all contractual and legal grounds.

(3) The supply of services to others without compensation or the offer of labor under an employment relationship shall not be considered as the supply of services.

(3) Article 21 of the Value-Added Tax Act 【Correction】

(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;

C. Facts and determination

(1) During the period of March 15, 2005 through March 28, 2005, the head of the OO head of the tax office conducted a tax investigation on an off-site corporation, and entered into an execution participant agreement with the applicant on April 8, 2003 with respect to the issues at issue corporation. During the period of March 12 through 2003. 31, 2003, the head of the OO head of the tax office confirmed that the applicant received the issues from the on-site director of the off-site director and the on-site director of the accounting staff OO of the foreign corporation, and notified the disposition authority of the taxation data on May 9, 2005. The disposition authority is confirmed based on the psychological data

(2) On this ground, the claimant entered into an employment contract with the off-request corporation and worked as the head of the working group that manages daily workers under the supervision of the off-request corporation, and submitted the employment contract and the statement of payment of daily working expenses, alleging that the amount at issue was received in lump sum as the representative of daily workers and paid to each daily worker.

(3) Examining whether the claimant can be deemed to have received the issue amount collectively as a representative of daily employed workers and paid to daily employed workers,

In the employment contract, it is different from the claimant's assertion that the non-party ○○○ has managed daily workers as the head of the working group because it is stated that the non-party ○○○ has entered into an employment contract in the class of daily class with the non-party ○○○○○, and therefore, it is difficult to trust the claimant's argument in light of the fact that the resident registration number (OOOOOOO) in the contracting party confirmation column does not coincide with the applicant's resident registration number (OOOOOOO) and the non-party s/he receives wages of 50,000 won, which is the same amount as that of other daily workers, and there is no clear evidence that the claimant as the head of the working group has received the same amount as that of other daily workers.

(4) In full view of the above facts, in light of the fact that the claimant submitted a contract for construction participants prepared with the non-claim corporation in the course of investigating the non-claim corporation and received the amount of issues, while the claimant failed to present objective evidence, such as financial evidence, which can prove that the plaintiff received the amount of issues from the non-claim corporation and paid to the daily employed worker, the disposition of the disposition imposing the value-added tax on the claimant by deeming the amount of issues as the construction cost due to the supply of services is deemed to have

4. Conclusion

This case shall be decided as ordered in accordance with Articles 81 and 65(1)2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, since it is judged that the petition for appeal is groundless as a result of the review.

arrow