2013west 4536 (20 December 20, 2014)

Only because some of the details of remittance of the purchase price are different from the fact, purchase cannot be deemed false or processed.

It is difficult to readily conclude that most of the sales were processed and sold at the time of tax investigation conducted in 2009-2010 by the purchaser, and the transaction in 2011 is also processed. The fact that the endorser of a check used at the time of payment of the purchase is not related to the purchaser, or that some of the details of remittance of the purchase are different from the fact cannot be deemed false

Article 19 (Scope of Deductible Expenses)

2014Guhap12031 Revocation of Disposition of Corporate Tax Imposition

O Co., Ltd.

O Head of tax office

National Flag

May 29, 2015

June 26, 2015

1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 52,842,490 on February 15, 2011 against the Plaintiff on February 15, 2013 is revoked.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 18, 2010, the Plaintiff, a corporation engaged in trade business, such as clothes, etc. in the OOdong OOOOO in Seoul, and received three copies of purchase tax invoices in an amount equivalent to KRW 153,860,00 (hereinafter referred to as “instant tax invoice”) from AA (representativeF) during the first taxable period of value-added tax in 201. Based on this, the Plaintiff filed a return on the value-added tax and corporate tax against the head of the OO tax office (the authority of the OO head of the OO head of the tax office and the Defendant of the OO head of the OO head of the OO head of the OO tax office were succeeded to the Defendant by change of his jurisdiction; hereinafter referred to as the “the Defendant”).

B. From August 31, 2012 to January 31, 2013, the head of the GG Tax Office: (a) conducted a tax investigation on the Plaintiff; (b) conducted a tax investigation on the Plaintiff; and (c) confirmed that the amount withdrawn from the Plaintiff was deposited into the Plaintiff’s representative account; and (d) notified the Defendant of the taxation data by deeming that the Plaintiff received the issue tax invoice without real transactions.

C. Accordingly, on February 15, 2013, the Defendant excluded the amount equivalent to the purchase amount of the instant tax invoice (hereinafter referred to as “the purchase amount”) from deductible expenses, and corrected and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 52,842,490 of the corporate tax for the business year 2011 (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

D. On February 20, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal. On February 20, 2014, the Tax Tribunal rendered a re-assessment decision to the effect that, with respect to purchase tax invoices in an amount equivalent to KRW 153,860,000, which the Plaintiff received from AA during the first VAT period of value added tax in 201, the Plaintiff shall re-examine the amount of the Plaintiff’s storage and delivery, actual purchase price, and actual export price, and shall include the amount equivalent to the purchase price in deductible expenses as a result of the re-audit, and shall correct the relevant tax base and tax amount. The Defendant determined and notified the Plaintiff of the same amount of tax and tax as the instant disposition on March 31, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1-1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The defendant imposed corporate tax by excluding the purchase price of this case solely on the circumstance that the defendant is suspected of being in material facts. However, since the plaintiff purchased actual goods from AA and exported all of them, all of the purchase price of this case must be recognized as losses.

3. Relevant statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

4. Determination

(a) Facts of recognition;

1) The Plaintiff purchased clothes or raw materials from the purchaser, and carried out the business by selling them to the seller with profits added thereto.

2) On March 4, 2011, the Plaintiff received purchase tax invoices from H 6,560 from H on the same day. On March 7, 2011, the Plaintiff reported the export of the said goods to the head of J from H H on the same day, and received a certificate of completion on the same day. The Plaintiff received purchase tax invoices from H 8,560 copies of the said goods from H on March 5, 201, and completed the export of the said goods upon receipt of the purchase tax invoices from H on the 10th of the same month. On the other hand, on March 10, 2011, the Plaintiff received from H on the 10th of the same month the export declaration on the said goods and completed the export declaration on the said goods, and on March 10, 2011, the Plaintiff received from H 3rd 6,860 copies of the goods and its purchase declaration on the said goods from H 10th of the same month.

3) According to the re-audit report prepared by the Defendant after re-auditing the Plaintiff’s quantity, quantity of storage, actual purchase price, and actual export volume according to the decision of the Tax Tribunal, the Plaintiff’s actual export amount in 2011 appears to have been actually exported according to the documents, such as the export declaration certificate, the export performance inquiry, and the purchase confirmation as to the actual export of the goods.

4) and u3000, while having conducted a tax investigation with respect to AA on November 201, 201, the LLT determined that 99.77% of the second sale in 2009, 94.69% of the first sale in 2010, 94.19% of the purchase, 98.97% of the second sale in 2010, and 79.5% of the purchase as the processing transaction.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul evidence Nos. 2-1, 2, Eul evidence No. 4-6, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

1) In a lawsuit seeking revocation on the grounds of illegality of taxation disposition, the tax authority has the burden of proving the legality of disposition and the existence of the taxation requirement fact, so in principle, the burden of proving the amount of expenses to be included in deductible expenses, which are the basis for determining the amount of income as the corporate tax base, is also the tax authority in principle. However, in a case where the tax authority proves that some of the expenses reported by the taxpayer were false, or that a tax invoice on some of the expenses was prepared without real transactions, or that the amount reported by the taxpayer himself/herself was proved to be reasonable, or that there was another cost equivalent to the same amount while the taxpayer decided that the amount reported by the taxpayer was false, the taxpayer needs to prove that it is easy for the taxpayer to present books and evidence as to the existence and amount of other expenses (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Nu5816, Oct

2) Based on the above legal principles, the Plaintiff’s disposal of the instant tax invoice was 10 years ago, based on the facts that it was difficult for the Plaintiff to conclude that the Plaintiff’s actual transaction of the instant tax invoice was 10 years ago, and that the Plaintiff’s actual transaction of the instant tax invoice was 10 years ago, and that it was difficult to conclude that the Plaintiff’s actual transaction of the instant tax invoice was 10 years ago, on the basis of the fact that the Plaintiff’s purchase of the instant tax invoice was 10 years ago, and that the amount of the instant tax invoice was 10 years ago, and that the Plaintiff’s purchase of the instant tax invoice was 2 years thereafter, and that the Plaintiff’s actual transaction of the instant tax invoice was 10 years ago, and that it was difficult to conclude that the amount of the instant tax invoice was 20 years ago, based on the fact that the Plaintiff’s purchase of the instant tax invoice was 10 years ago, and that the Plaintiff’s actual transaction of the instant tax invoice was 10 years ago.

5. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.