Whether the preparation of a double contract constitutes a fraud or other fraudulent act

Since the fact that the plaintiffs reported value-added tax on the basis of the purchase price stated in the modified contract prepared differently from the fact that the purchase price was reduced compared to the previous sales contract in relation to the housing at issue of this case is confirmed, and the plaintiffs submitted the modified contract to the defendant as evidence, it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiffs evaded value-added

Article 26-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes (Period for Excluding Assessment of National Taxes)

2015Guhap5054 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

○○ et al.

00. Head of tax office

on October 30, 2016

on 25, 2016

1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

The disposition of imposition of value-added tax for the second term of 204 against the plaintiffs on October 1, 2013 is revoked, respectively, of value-added tax 19,382,650 won, value-added tax for the first term of 2005, value-added tax for the second term of 11,129,420 won, value-added tax for the second term of 205, value-added tax for the second term of 2005, value-added tax for 58,976,250 won, value-added tax for the first term of 206, and value-added tax for 11,007,690 won for the first term of 207.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 18, 2002, the plaintiffs established a company with the trade name of 'OO construction' from x x x x-ro x, Gyeonggi-do 00 Do 00 - 00 Do 00 - 00 - x x-ro x, which is engaged in the construction business and the housing construction business. On July 16, 2003, the plaintiffs newly built the first floor above the name of 'OO-loan' in Seoul 00 - 00 -00 - 00 - 00 - 00 -, and reported the value-added tax to the defendant for sale and sale of 19 households among them from 29 December 29, 2004 to 1st 207.

B. After confirming the sales price of housing as shown in the court decision, etc. in accordance with civil litigation between the plaintiffs and the purchaser, the defendant deemed that the plaintiffs underreported the sales price of 14 households among the above 19 households' row houses (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the instant apartment houses") for the said 19 households, and thus, on October 1, 2013, the plaintiffs were notified of correction and notification of 00 won of value-added tax for the second term of 2004, value-added tax for the first term of 2005, value-added tax for the second term of 2005, value-added tax for the second term of 2000, value-added tax for the first term of 2006, and value-added tax for the first term of 2000 for the first term of 207 (hereinafter referred to as "disposition in this case") and the plaintiffs were dismissed on December 17, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, Gap evidence 8-1 through 19, Eul evidence 1-1 to 5, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

1) The Plaintiffs suffered difficulties in repaying their debts due to low performance in the process of new construction and sale of a row house, and inevitably cancelled or cancelled the existing sales contract on the instant apartment house in question and concluded a new sales contract with the buyers by lowering the sales amount. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs and the buyers should be imposed value-added tax on the basis of the sales amount under the new modified contract.

2) Since the Plaintiffs reported value-added tax in accordance with the modified contract consistent with the facts, there was no purpose of tax evasion, and there was no active act, such as submitting the modified contract to the Defendant, and thus, there was no fraud or other unlawful act. Therefore, the Plaintiffs did not evade taxes due to fraud or other unlawful act, and thus, the exclusion period for imposition of five years, which is not ten years, should be applied. The instant disposition was made after the five-year exclusion period for imposition expires.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Determination of the actual purchase price, which is the basis for imposing value-added tax

A) According to each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 11 through 27 (including the number of each unit), the plaintiffs are acknowledged as having prepared a modified contract with the purchaser to reduce the existing purchase price. However, considering the overall purport of each of the statements and arguments set forth in the evidence Nos. 3 through 8 (including each unit number), the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the purchaser regarding the 13 households of the issue of this case, including the purchase and sale balance, claiming the amount unpaid from the purchase and sale price set forth in the existing sales contract. The plaintiffs did not completely mention about the modified contract. ② In the above lawsuit, the court sentenced the plaintiffs to the effect that the 12 purchasers should pay the unpaid purchase price based on the purchase price set forth in the existing sales contract, and the remaining one claimant and the plaintiff were established between the purchaser and the plaintiff, ③ it is reasonable to find the plaintiffs as the purchaser's actual purchase price set forth in the existing sales contract of this case.

B) On the other hand, the plaintiffs asserted that, although the UO had completed the registration of transfer of ownership based on a sales contract in the UO on the condition that the collateral security right of 450 million won (right to collateral security of 305 million North Korea 000 association regarding the instant apartment house among the instant apartment houses shall be exempted from liability, since the OO had not accepted the obligation of the loan due to the failure to accept the obligation of the O's exemption from liability, the above 305 U.S. association has not expressed that the above 305 U.S. sales contract was terminated due to the reasons attributable to the UOO, but there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiffs expressed that the OO had expressed that it terminated the sales contract on 305 of the instant

C) Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

2) Whether the exclusion period has expired

Article 26-2(1)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes stipulates that national taxes may be imposed for ten years from the date on which national taxes may be imposed if a taxpayer evades national taxes by fraud or other improper means.

However, as seen earlier, the fact that the Plaintiffs reported value-added tax from February 2, 2004 to January 2007 based on the purchase price stated in the modified contract, which was written differently from the fact that the amount reduced compared to the previous sales contract regarding the instant apartment house in question was in relation to the Defendant, is that the Plaintiffs submitted the modified contract to the Defendant based on their evidentiary materials. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiffs evaded value-added tax by unlawful means.

Therefore, the exclusion period of value-added tax against the plaintiffs shall be 10 years, not 5 years, and this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

If so, all of the plaintiffs' claims are without merit, they are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.