early 2012west 1559 ( December 26, 2012)

There is no evidence to recognize that there was an actual payment, such as the fact that service charges are not separately separated from credit card sales slip.

The fact that the 60% of the sales revenue generated from the workplace was reported by dividing it into a daily rate as a service fee, the service fee that the plaintiff voluntarily divided is approved along with the drinking value, etc., so it seems difficult for the customers to recognize that the 60% of the amount they settled belongs to the employee directly, the fact that it was not formally divided, the fact that it was not formally divided, and there was no objective data that the employee paid the amount to the employee.

2013Guhap8387 Such disposition as rectification of value-added tax, etc.

AAAA

The head of Yangcheon Tax Office

June 14, 2013

July 5, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant, as stated in attached Table 1, on December 8, 2011, cancels all of the value-added tax, individual consumption tax, and education tax imposition imposed on the plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From June 16, 2007, the Plaintiff reported and paid the value-added tax, individual consumption tax, and education tax (hereinafter “value-added tax, etc.”) from the second half of 2007, while running an entertainment tavern (hereinafter “the instant workplace”) under the trade name “OO” from Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 00.

B. Most of the sales of the instant place of business have been settled by credit card by customers, and when issuing each call ticket, the Plaintiff set up a credit card approval short-term terminal to indicate the service charge and drinking value separately at 6:4 percent, and accordingly, reported the amount equivalent to 60 percent of the actual sales as service charge.

C. In May 2008, the Plaintiff replaced the card approval device, and did not set the newly installed card approval device as the previous one, and thus, the service fee was not separately indicated on the sales slip from that time to November of the same year. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff considered the total amount of KRW 000 (hereinafter “undivided amount”) equivalent to 60% of the sales amount generated during the pertinent period as the service fee, and reported and paid the value-added tax, etc., except for the amount of value-added tax from the tax base.

D. Accordingly, the Defendant cannot regard the undivided amount as a service fee, and included it in the tax base as follows, and revised and notified the total value-added tax of KRW 000 on December 1, 201, and the total amount of KRW 000 and the total education tax of KRW 000 on the 5th of the same month (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the disposition in this case"). The Plaintiff asserted that the date of the disposition in this case is "No. 8 December 201," but it is different from the fact.

E. On January 18, 2012, the Plaintiff appealed to the imposition of value-added tax, and filed an objection, and the Defendant dismissed it on February 10 of the same year.

F. Accordingly, on March 23, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a request for a judgment in accordance with Article 69 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the request on December 26 of the same year.

[Reasons for Recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence 1-2-1 to 9, Gap evidence 3-1, and Eul evidence 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and its determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The amount equivalent to service charges out of the sales amount generated at the instant workplace is not actually a plaintiff sales, but is not subject to value-added tax. Nevertheless, solely on the grounds that the service charges were not separately indicated on the card sales slip or that the service charges were not prepared, deeming the entire amount as the plaintiff's sales and included in the tax base of value-added tax, etc. violates the principle of substantial taxation under Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes. In light of the type of business of the instant workplace and the details of the report, etc., a minimum of 60% of the sales amount is deemed as service charges, and thus, the instant disposition on a different premise must be revoked.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached 2 is as shown in the "related Acts and subordinate statutes".

C. Determination

(1) Article 48(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22043, Feb. 18, 2010) provides that "the tax base stipulated under Article 13(1) of the Act includes all monetary value related to consideration, regardless of the names of the other party to the transaction," while Article 13(9) of the former Enforcement Decree provides that "any person who provides food and accommodation services or personal services is provided with the tax invoice, receipt, or credit card sales slip under Article 32-2 of the Act and provides that "if it is confirmed that the service charges are paid to the relevant employee separately from the above consideration, the service charges shall not be included in the tax base: Provided, That the same shall not apply to the case where the person, who intends to exclude the service charges from the tax base, and the person who actually provides the service charges to the employee, separately enters the service charges under the provisions of the former Enforcement Decree such as the Individual Consumption Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 201-17).

(2) The facts that were not indicated on the card sales slip with health care, and the undivided amount were not indicated on the card sales slip, etc. are as seen earlier, and it is insufficient to view that the Plaintiff actually paid the undivided amount as service charges to its employees. (The Plaintiff does not submit the service charge ledger, which is objective data supporting the fact that service charges are paid.) There is no other evidence to support this. The following facts revealed, i.e., the following circumstances revealed, i., the Plaintiff’s 60% of the sales amount generated from the instant workplace, regardless of how the customers were supplied with a certain service, and how they were sold, it is difficult to view that the rate of 60% of the sales amount generated from the instant workplace is too high, and it is difficult to believe that the rate of service charges accounts in the entire sales, and that the Plaintiff cannot be viewed as 60% of the total sales amount, even if it appears that the Plaintiff did not directly pay the amount of service charges to its employees.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed, and the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the losing party.