Where a tax invoice is proved to be fraudulent by a tax authority to the extent that the taxpayer bears the burden of proof.

Since the tax invoice at issue was proved to be false by the tax authority, and the plaintiff failed to produce evidence to prove that the issue is not false, the disposition that deducts input tax amount is legitimate.

2013Guhap13891 Revocation of Disposition, etc. of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

AAA, Inc.

Head of Guro Tax Office

October 30, 2013

November 15, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

1. Each disposition of the Defendant imposed on the Plaintiff on November 1, 201, the imposition of the value-added tax for the second period of value-added tax (including additional tax), for the first period of value-added tax (including additional tax), for the first period of value-added tax (including additional tax), for the second period of value-added tax in 2009, for the second period of value-added tax in 2009, for the second period of value-added tax (including additional tax), for the corporate tax for the business year of 2008, for the corporate tax for the business year of 2009, for the first year of 2009.

2. On August 18, 201, the Defendant’s notification of changes in the amount of income made to the Plaintiff on August 18, 201 (i) the income earner in the business year 2008 KimB, and the amount of income made to the Plaintiff as OB, and (ii) the income earner in the business year 2009 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

(a) Voluntary processing contracts;

On February 23, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a contract on a clinical processing that “CC (hereinafter “CC”) and “CC (CC) manufactures and supplies clothing, bags, and other products with raw materials provided by the Plaintiff in accordance with the Plaintiff’s production instruction and processing instruction, and receives them from the Plaintiff.”

(b) Disposition, etc.;

(1) From October 4, 2010 to November 14, 2010, the head of Seodaemun Tax Office issued seven copies of the sales tax invoice of the supply price of the second-year supply in 2008, the OOO of the supply price of the first-year supply in 2009, the OOOO of the supply price of the second-year supply in 2009, and the second-year supply price of the OOOOO of the supply price in 2009 (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) to the Defendant for taxation data.”

(2) Accordingly, the defendant issued a bonus disposition to KimB, the representative director of the plaintiff, for the business year 2008, for the business year 2009, and notified the plaintiff of the change in the amount of income on August 18, 201. In addition, on the ground that "the tax invoice of this case was confirmed as processed data" on the plaintiff on November 1, 201, the defendant denied the deduction of the amount of the input tax and issued a notice of the change in the amount of income." ① OOOO(including additional taxes) for the second year of 2008, OOO(including additional taxes) for the first year of 2009, and OOO(including additional taxes) for the second year of 209, and ②OO(including additional taxes) for the business year 2008, OO(including additional taxes) for the business year 2009, OOO(including additional taxes, and the notice of the disposition of imposition in this case."

(3) On June 8, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an appeal on June 8, 2012, and was dismissed by the Tax Tribunal on February 26, 2013.

Facts without any dispute, Gap's Nos. 1 through 5, 10, Eul's No. 1 through 6 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Considering the fact that the Plaintiff was supplied with a bank ordered by D upon the request of CC which entered into a contract for processing, that it was actually paid to D the same price as the supply price under the instant tax invoice, that the Plaintiff separately managed the goods determined inappropriate by inspecting the supplied goods, and that the complaint against sales of the goods was resolved, the instant tax invoice issued by the actual supplier and the same tax invoice issuer does not constitute a false tax invoice, and thus, the instant disposition was unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) Details of the Plaintiff’s corporate tax declaration

The details of corporate tax reported by the Plaintiff on the business year 2008 to 2010 are as follows:

(unit: source)

Business year

Name of subject;

208

209

2010

Total

Gross Sales

OOO

OOO

OOO

OOO

Sales of household and miscellaneous goods;

OOO

OOO

OOO

Lighting Costs

OOO

-OOO

OOO

Material Costs

OOO

-OOO

OOO

Expenses

OOO

OOO

Outgoing Processing Cost

OOO

OOO

Mamast Inventory

OOO

OOO

OOO

OOO

(2) Details, etc. of reporting D's value added tax

(A) DD submitted two copies of the value-added tax return for the second period of 2009 with different contents. E reported value-added tax as follows, and E did not report value-added tax for the first period of 2010.

(unit: source)

Category of Flag

MaE

Customer

Sales

Purchase

guidance.

Sales

Purchase

guidance.

Second Period, 2008

OOO

-

OOO

OOO

OOO

OOO

1, 2009

OOO

-

OOO

OOO

OOO

OOO

Second Period, 2009

OOO

-

OOO

OOO

OOO

OOO

1, 2010

-

-

-

OOO

OOO

OOO

Total

OOO

OOO

OOO

OOO

OOO

(B) Of the details of D’s financial transactions, the part relating to the Plaintiff is as follows.

(unit: source)

Date of Transaction

Admission Amount (Plaintiff ? E)

Amount of withdrawal

December 31, 2008

OOO

December 31, 2008

OOO

March 11, 2009

OOO

March 11, 2009

OOO

April 9, 2009

OOO

April 9, 2009

OOO

May 7, 2009

OOO

May 7, 2009

OOO

June 10, 2009

OOO

June 10, 2009

OOO

June 11, 2009

OOO

Total

OOO

OOO

(3) A statement in the course of the tax investigation of MaE, which is a real business entity of D.

○ The end of October 12, 2010

This is because only cash purchase has been made without the purchase tax invoice (the reasons why only sales are confirmed and no purchase is made among the details reported by the principal and the customer in 2009 and 1.2010).

○ The end of November 8, 2010

- The first OOO sales tax invoice in 2009 was omitted when the value-added tax return was filed.

- The Plaintiff supplied wall and hand bags to the Plaintiff, and the payment was received in the account. The Plaintiff’s payment was immediately paid in cash after the deposit, and returned to the Plaintiff at the price of the bamboo, and only received official fees and value-added taxes. Sales tax invoice was prepared by the Plaintiff on its own computer.

Facts without any dispute, Gap's 1 through 5, 12, Eul's 1, 2, 3, and 7 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

D. Determination

(1) Article 17(2)1-2 of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9915, Jan. 1, 2010) provides that “In cases where the necessary entry of a tax invoice is entered differently from the fact, the input tax amount shall not be deducted from the output tax amount.” The meaning that it is different from the fact is that the requisite entry of a tax invoice is not true, notwithstanding the formal entry of a transaction contract, etc. made between the parties to the goods or services, the goods or services in fact

The burden of proving the legality of taxation and the existence of taxation requirements in an administrative litigation seeking the revocation of taxation on the grounds of illegality of taxation is the principle that the tax authority bears the burden of proving necessary expenses, which serve as the basis for the determination of taxable income. However, insofar as a tax invoice on some of the expenses reported by the taxpayer has been falsely prepared without a real transaction, it is disputed as to whether it is an actual cost, and there is a need to prove that it is easy for the taxpayer to present books and evidence as to the fact that such expenses have been actually paid to him/her, except in exceptional cases where there are special circumstances such as where it is proved that the tax invoice on some of the expenses reported by the taxpayer was falsely prepared without a real transaction, and the other party to the payment was proved to be false (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Du6100, Jan. 27, 2011).

(2) In the instant case, the purchase price under the instant tax invoice is KRW OO, KRW 208, KRW 2009, and KRW 2010, KRW 100, KRW 2008, KRW 2009, KRW 2008, KRW 2009, KRW 100, KRW 2000, KRW 200, KRW 200, KRW 2000, KRW 200, KRW 200, KRW 200, KRW 7,000, KRW 7,000, KRW 8,000, KRW 1,000, KRW 2,000, KRW 2,000, KRW 2,000, KRW 1,00,00, KRW 2,00, KRW 2,000, KRW 2,00, KRW 7,00,00, etc., KRW 1,06, etc., of KRW 7,00,00.

(3) Therefore, the instant tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice, and there was no actual transaction. Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful.

3. Conclusion

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