early 209west2599 ( August 28, 2009)

Appropriateness of the assertion that a taxation disposition is not a real business entity

Although the business place asserts that it is not a real business operator, the e-mail address of the business place is the Plaintiff’s e-mail address, and the Plaintiff applied for an electronic notification service after joining the National Home Service and applying for the electronic notification service.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 19,580,820 on February 2, 2009 against the Plaintiff is revoked, respectively, the imposition of KRW 29,222,510 on the first year value-added tax in 2007, KRW 22,893,240 on the second year value-added tax in 2007, and KRW 19,580,820 on the global income tax in 207.

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

A. On January 16, 2004, the Plaintiff completed the registration of a construction business (* execution) business operator under the trade name, i.e., “B engineering”, at the seat of 642-15 102, Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City DDdong 642-15.

B. The Plaintiff received a tax invoice of KRW 609,220,000 ( KRW 467,220,000 in 207, KRW 142,000 in 207, and KRW 142,00,00 in 207 (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) from Kim E, which operates a construction business under the trade name ofCC, and was deducted as the input tax amount at the value-added tax return, and was deducted as the necessary expenses at the time of global income tax return.

C. The Kim E-E operated theCC test and underreporting the value-added tax. The defendant discovered that the plaintiff received the tax invoice of this case without real transaction as a result of the investigation conducted by Kim E-E and the plaintiff, and imposed the value-added tax and general income tax on the plaintiff as stated in the purport of the claim (hereinafter "each disposition of this case").

D. The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with each of the instant dispositions, filed an objection on March 12, 2009, but was dismissed. On June 18, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a tax appeal with the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on August 28, 2009.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 3-1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 6-1, 2, Eul evidence 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the imposition and disposition of the instant case are proper; and

A. The plaintiff's principal

In fact, a person who operated B engineering is not the plaintiff, but the plaintiff's husband KimA, and KimA voluntarily applied for registration of business in the name of the plaintiff without knowledge of the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff is not a business operator of B engineering, and all B engineering income is not attributed to the plaintiff. Therefore, each disposition of imposition of value-added tax and income tax on B engineering is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

If the ownership of income, profit, property, or transaction subject to taxation is merely nominal, and there is another person to whom such income, profit, act, or transaction belongs, the tax-related law shall apply to the person to whom such income, profit, or transaction actually belongs. It is alleged by the Plaintiff that imposing a simple nominal owner as a taxpayer is against the substance over form principle and it is not permissible. However, the Plaintiff’s submission of the evidence without any dispute between the parties or the above evidence and evidence Nos. 4, 5, 16, 17, 22-2, 5-2, 8-1, 9-1, 2, 9-1, 2, 3, and 10-1 through 5, 11, 12, and 13 as well as 9-1, 9-2, 9-2, and 9-1, 9-2, and 9-3, 9-1, 9-2, 3, and 9-2, 3, as well as 9-13, the Plaintiff’s testimony and 2.

1) At the time when the Defendant conducted a tax investigation on the receipt of the processing tax invoice for B Engineering, the Plaintiff stated that he/she was in charge of B Engineering, and specifically responded to the details of the receipt of the processing tax invoice.

2) The address of the B engineering’s workplace was reported to the Plaintiff’s address, not from the time of the first declaration as indicated in the table below, at the time of the first declaration, KimA’s address, and the address of the B engineering’s workplace was changed following the change of the Plaintiff’s address. Moreover, mail pertaining to B engineering was served to the Plaintiff’s address reported to be

3) The transaction on B engineering was conducted using the Plaintiff’s account. The transaction on business using the said account was conducted in the form of an electronic finance which requires the Plaintiff’s certification of the Plaintiff himself/herself, and the said account was not entirely used in the business account, but used for the Plaintiff’s personal purpose account, such as health insurance premiums, childcare centers, gas charges, telephone charges, television fee, etc., and frequently deposited and withdrawn in the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff’s parent-child bank’s name. In light of the fact that the period during which the said account was used for the business account is considerably long, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff is irrelevant to the B engineering transaction using the said account, and it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s personal and B engineering business funds were managed separately from the Plaintiff’s personal funds.

4) Among the construction contracts for B engineering, there are many contracts entered into in the name of KimA, but a contract entered into in the name of the Plaintiff exists, and the salary stude, which is a business vehicle of B engineering (vehicle number 97q3509), etc. are registered in the name of the Plaintiff.

5) The e-mail address pertaining to B engineering was registered as the Plaintiff’s e-mail address on August 21, 2005, and on September 1, 2006, the Plaintiff stated the Plaintiff’s mobile phone number and reported the Plaintiff’s mobile phone number upon reporting the change of the place of business on September 1, 2006. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff applied for the e-mail notification service by joining the National Tax Service Home Call Service, and that the Plaintiff’s e-mail address and cellular phone in the event that the notice of tax payment was sent by the said e-mail address was directed, it appears

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's request shall be dismissed without merit.