2010 Heavy 1905 ( December 03, 2010)

No details of the shipment of oil at the oil reservoir to the Plaintiff’s oil station are found, and no false tax invoice is found.

The fact that the oil shipped from the oil reservoir was transported through a transport engineer is confirmed, but there is no case where the place of destination becomes the plaintiff's oil station in the details of oil shipment at the oil reservoir, and the transport engineer transferred the oil ticket to the plaintiff's oil station even though he did not present at all, the plaintiff received only the oil from a third party and only receives the tax invoice.

Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount)

2011Guhap2355 Disposition of revocation of the imposition of value-added tax

XX

Head of Si Tax Office

October 27, 2011

November 17, 2011

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax for the second term of 207 against the Plaintiff on April 5, 2010, KRW 7,711,110, value-added tax for the first term of 208, value-added tax for the first term of 2008, KRW 48,068,160, and value-added tax for the second term of 208 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From August 31, 1995, the Plaintiff is a business operator who runs gas station business under the trade name of 00 of Mam-si Nowon-gu from Mamsi-dong to 000.

B. The Plaintiff reported the value added tax on the second term portion, the first and second term portion in 2007, and the second term portion in 2008, based on the tax invoice of KRW 798,200,000,000 (hereinafter referred to as the “tax invoice of this case”) received from ○ Energy Co., Ltd., Ltd., ○○ Energy Co., Ltd., △△ Group Energy Co., Ltd., △△△△, △△△△△△ Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Purchase”), and filed a value added tax return after deducting the corresponding input tax amount from the output tax amount.

[The following table omitted]

C. On April 5, 2010, the mid-term regional tax office, etc., which conducted data-based investigations on the instant purchaser, deemed that the instant tax invoice was received without real transactions, and notified the Defendant of such fact. The Defendant deemed that the instant tax invoice was a tax invoice different from the fact, and thus, did not deduct the input tax amount from the output tax amount, and notified the Plaintiff of the correction and notification of value-added tax, such as the entry in the claim in the purport of the claim (hereinafter

D. On May 31, 2010, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on May 31, 2010, but the appeal was dismissed on December 3, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff received the instant tax invoice after being supplied with the actual oil from the purchaser of the instant case and paid the price in full. Even if the actual supplier of the oil was not the purchaser of the instant case, the Plaintiff verified the business registration certificate, etc., and therefore, the Plaintiff fulfilled its duty of care as a bona fide transaction party. Therefore, the instant disposition should be revoked as it is unlawful.

In addition, the reason for the original disposition of this case was that it received the tax invoice of this case without a real transaction, and the real transaction was conducted, but it is not recognized that the actual supplier is different from the entries of the tax invoice of this case. Thus, the defendant cannot assert it as a new reason for disposition.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

1) Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that an input tax amount in a case where the entries of a tax invoice are different from the fact shall not be deducted from the output tax amount. In this case, the meaning that it is different from the fact refers to a case where the ownership of income, profit, calculation, act or transaction subject to taxation is nominal, and where there is another person to whom such income, profit, or transaction belongs, the person to whom such income, profit, or transaction belongs shall be liable for tax payment in light of the purport of Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes stipulating that the necessary entries of a tax invoice refer to a case where the necessary entries of a transaction invoice do not coincide with those of the person to whom the goods or service is actually supplied or the person to whom the goods or service is supplied, regardless of the formal entries such as the transaction contract prepared

2) According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 6 (including each number), and the witness testimony and the whole purport of the pleadings of Song-A, the oil listed in the tax invoice of this case shall be acknowledged as a fact that Song-A, who was requested to transport oil from the purchaser of this case, transported the oil from dopco to the plaintiff's oil station at the time of supply of the above tax invoice to dopco (Y2S2,2644) by using dopco a oil tank on the date of supply of the tax invoice. The plaintiff may transfer the value of supply stated in the tax invoice of this case to the account in the name of the purchaser of this case at the time of supply. Accordingly, it is determined that the plaintiff was actually supplied with the oil listed in the tax invoice of this case and paid the price therefor.

3) However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by Gap evidence 1-4, Eul evidence 2-1-5, Eul evidence 2-1-5, Eul evidence 3-3, witness Song-A's testimony, this court's GSknex Co., Ltd., Hyundai Lao Bank Co., Ltd., and Eul Co., Ltd., and the overall purport of the arguments, the plaintiff is supplied with oil listed in the tax invoice of this case from a third party, not the purchasing agency of this case. However, the purchasing agency of this case seems to have provided necessary data, such as tax invoices, for real transactions between the plaintiff and the third party.

Therefore, even though the third party supplied oil, the tax invoice of this case is a tax invoice with false statement of the supplier as the purchaser of this case, and constitutes "tax invoice entered differently from the fact under Article 17 (2) 1-2 of the Value-Added Tax Act."

A) As a result of the data survey of the medium regional tax office’s ○○ Energy, the workplace of the ○○ Energy is the same place as dives energy, which is its main purchaser, and the 99% or more of the purchase tax invoices received from dives energy, were published without real trade, and the 00% or more of 00% of the purchase tax invoices, which were reported to be leased at the time of registration of the business, was accused of the crime on data, and there was no fact that the actual oil was shipped out in the oil storage tank reported to be leased at the time of registration of the business, and there was no fact that the transportation equipment was possessed or leased, and the oil payments received from

B) As a result of the data review on the energy of the Do governor in Seo-gu Tax Office and the Director of the Daejeon District Tax Office, the Do governor energy did not use the storage facilities indicated in the petroleum sales registration certificate and the leased transportation equipment once. The oil price received from the Do governor energy was immediately transferred to the account of the YL Energy Co., Ltd., the main purchaser of the oil, and GW Energy, and thus making it impossible to trace the fund by cash. The YL Energy Co., Ltd. and the GC Petroleum Co., Ltd., the sole purchaser of the YL Energy, filed a complaint on the data, and the first installment tax invoice received from the YL Energy Co., Ltd. in 2008 was confirmed to be issued without real transactions.

C) As a result of the data survey on △△ Energy by the head of the Yangcheon Tax Office, △△ Energy uses the office of △△△ Energy as its main business place. Storage facilities listed in the petroleum sales registration certificate and the transport vehicles leased were not used only once. The M Energy Co., Ltd., the main purchasing place, was accused of the fact on the data, and the remainder after deducting a certain amount of fees from the deposited oil price was confirmed to have been transferred to the M Energy Co., Ltd. immediately after being transferred to the account.

D) As a result of the data survey on the terms and conditions of the director of the Namcheon Tax Office’s clause on the terms and conditions of the clause, Cheongcheon Tax Office did not actually use the leased place of business, oil storage facilities and transport vehicles, and most of the purchased amount was investigated into the processing transaction. The deposited oil amount was immediately withdrawn in cash or distributed and transferred to another account, and thus, it was confirmed that it was impossible to track the funds.

E) The Defendants were convicted of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, etc. in relation to the receipt of false tax invoices by ○○ Energy, Ma Energy, Mad Co., Ltd., Madil Energy, GW Energy, YL Energy, and related persons.

F) According to the oil shipping details of the oil at the cargo reservoir, there is no case where the business partner or destination among oil transported by the oil reservoir from the oil reservoir on the date of the supply of the tax invoice in this case, but the Plaintiff did not present the shipment slip to the Plaintiff, although the oil supplier or destination was transferred to the Plaintiff at the time.

4) Furthermore, as seen in the instant tax invoice, a different tax invoice between the actual supplier and the supplier on the tax invoice cannot be deducted or refunded unless there is any special circumstance that the supplier was unaware of the fact that the supplier was unaware of the fact of misrepresentation of the tax invoice, and the person claiming the deduction or refund of the input tax amount is not negligent in not knowing the fact of misrepresentation of the name of the supplier (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002). In light of the various circumstances as seen in the foregoing paragraph (3) above, the Plaintiff appears to have failed to verify the actual supplier’s place of business or business facilities, etc. of the instant purchaser, even if there were sufficient circumstances to doubt whether the nominal supplier was not the material. On the contrary, there was no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff was not negligent in not knowing the fact of misrepresentation of the actual supplier’s name.

5) As to the Plaintiff’s assertion that the change in the grounds for disposition by the Defendant is not permissible, since the subject matter of the taxation disposition is objective existence of the tax amount determined by the tax authority, the tax authority may submit new data to support the legitimacy of the tax base and tax amount recognized in the pertinent disposition by the time of closing argument in the fact-finding proceedings, or exchange and change the reasons within the scope of maintaining the identity of the disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Du1994, Oct. 11, 2002). Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s above assertion against this is rejected.

6) Therefore, the instant disposition, which issued a correction and notification of value-added tax to the Plaintiff without deducting the input tax amount from the output tax amount, is lawful.

3. Conclusion

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