Whether the purchase tax invoice of gold bullion constitutes a false tax invoice

The disposition that deemed gold bullion purchase tax invoice as a false tax invoice is legitimate merely because it was made by the external appearance of the transaction for the purpose of refunding the value-added tax.

Tax amount paid under Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant's imposition of value-added tax against the plaintiff on October 1, 2005 (which appears to be a clerical error in the statement on October 11, 2005) shall be revoked each disposition of imposition of value-added tax for the second term of 203 to 244,63,950, 466,773,730 won for the first term of 2004 to 39,040,670 won for the business year of 2003 to 39,040, 670 won for the business year of 204 to 76,326,790 won for each business year.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff: (a) was an entrepreneur engaged in the manufacture, sale, and export and import business of gold bullion in 2003; (b) in the taxable period of the value-added tax of 1 year 2004, from 240km (total value of supply 3,495,520,000); (c) 10km (total value of supply 141,600,000); (d) 30km (total value of supply 42,39,000) from a stock company (hereinafter referred to as “○○”), 40km (total value of supply 596,267,000) from ○○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as “○○○○”), and received from 20 kilograms Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “the total value of supply”), 30 kilograms (the total value of supply, 200 kilograms) from each of the above return amount of value-added tax (the total value of value of supply 200 kilograms and value of value-added (hereinafter referred to as 236370 kilograms).

B. On October 1, 2005, the Defendant: (a) considered the instant tax invoice as a tax invoice different from the fact; and (b) applied the additional tax not received as evidentiary documents, and determined and notified the Plaintiff of the amount of KRW 244,63,950 for the second term of 2003, the amount of value-added tax, KRW 466,773,730 for the first term of 2004, and KRW 39,040,670 for the business year of 2003, and KRW 76,326,790 for the business year of 204 (hereinafter the instant disposition).

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 2-1, 2-2

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant tax invoice is unlawful for the Plaintiff to regard it as a normal transaction related to the actual transaction of gold bullion and impose value-added tax by not deducting the said input tax amount as a false tax invoice. In addition, as long as the instant tax invoice is normal, it is illegal to impose penalty tax by deeming that the Plaintiff failed to receive the tax invoice, which is a documentary evidence under the Corporate Tax

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Facts of recognition

(1) The instant gold bullion was all imported from a foreign country to distributed as a tax-free gold, and was converted from an importer to a total of 6-8 stages from the importer to the Plaintiff. All stages of transactions were conducted around the date of import of the relevant gold bullion. The Plaintiff exported all the instant gold bullion on the date of purchase. The export price of the instant gold bullion was lower than the price imported by the importer.

(2) The export of this case purchased the gold bullion of this case on credit, and exported it to ○○○ located company with no particular human and material facilities. The export price was paid by the Plaintiff around the next day following the sales and transferred it to the purchasing company. The export price was in a situation where there was no specific credit guarantee in relation thereto.

(3) On the other hand, all wholesalers converting the gold bullion of this case into the taxable gold in their circulation did not fulfill their obligation to pay value-added taxes by closing their business after selling them to the supply price lower than the purchase price (However, the value-added tax amount plus the value-added tax amount, i.e., the purchase price higher than the purchase price).

(4) Upon the implementation of the "tax exemption system under the Restriction of Special Taxation Act" from July 1, 2003, among gold bullion distributors, the gold bullion distributors enter the so-called wide coal company into the distribution mid-term distribution stage until the export of the imported gold bullion through several stages of distributors, and sold the gold bullion distributed as tax exemption to the whole stage of the breadth company, the company sold the gold bullion by adding the value-added tax equivalent to 10% to 10% of the value-added tax, and the distributor after the short-term withdrawal of the profit in cash and the closure of the business without paying the value-added tax can not collect the value-added tax. After the breadth company, the exporter after the receipt of the tax invoice at each stage and the deduction of the input tax amount is the zero-rate tax rate. After receiving the value-added tax from the government, the State suffered losses equivalent to the value-added tax refund paid by the exporter, and the so-called "large-scale business size by dividing the profits of gold bullion distributors and foreign gold bullion exporters and importers."

Revenue

Business Operators

? ?

Tax Exemption

Intermediate Award

? ?

Bombomb

Enterprise

? ?

Taxation

Intermediate Award

? ?

Wholesale

Enterprise

? ?

Export

Enterprise

? ?

Export

(5) After the instant gold bullion was distributed as tax-free gold through several stages, it was distributed as tax-free gold, and then distributed as tax-free gold after going through ○○ Trade Co., Ltd., ○○○○○○ Construction Co., Ltd., ○○○○○○ Construction Co., Ltd., ○○○○○○, Co., Ltd., ○○○○○○○ Construction Co., Ltd., ○○○○ Construction Co., Ltd., ○○○○○○ Construction Co., Ltd., ○○○○○○○○, and ○○○○ Construction Co., Ltd..

(6) On the other hand, ○○○○○○○ and other substantial operators of the above-mentioned coal company, who are the actual operators of the above-mentioned coal company, was convicted of the criminal facts pertaining to the tax evasion.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 7, Eul evidence 3 to 11, evidence 15 to 23 (including above numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

In light of the circumstances revealed through the above facts, namely, the closeness of the date of export and import of the gold bullion of this case, the size of the company located at ○○, the export counterpart, the amount of the goods price and the unique nature of the payment method, the complicated form and size of the transaction of this case, whether the transaction of this case is evaded in intermediate transaction, and the progress of criminal proceedings against related persons, etc., the purchase tax invoice of this case received by the Plaintiff is merely a mere creation of the appearance of the transaction for the purpose of refund of value-added tax without the supply of goods, transaction, or movement. Thus, the tax invoice

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on different premise is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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

Related Acts and subordinate statutes

○ Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

(2) The following input tax amounts shall not be deducted from the output tax amount:

1-2. An input tax amount, in case where the tax invoice as provided in Article 16 (1) and (3) is not delivered, or the whole or part of the matters to be entered under Article 16 (1) 1 through 4 (hereinafter referred to as a “necessary entry item”) is not entered or entered differently from the fact on the delivered tax invoice: Provided, That the input tax amount in such case as prescribed by the Presidential Decree shall be excluded

○ Article 76 of the Corporate Tax Act

(5) In case where a corporation (excluding such corporation as prescribed by the Presidential Decree) is supplied goods or services with a businessman as prescribed by the Presidential Decree in connection with its business and fails to receive the evidential documents as prescribed in any of subparagraphs of Article 116 (2), the chief of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment shall collect as corporate tax the amount calculated by adding an amount equivalent to 2/100 of the amount not received, except for the case where

○ Corporate Tax Act Article 116(Receipt and Safekeeping of Documentary Evidence of Expenditures)

(2) In cases falling under paragraph (1), where any corporation receives goods or services from a business operator prescribed by Presidential Decree and pays the price therefor, it shall receive evidential documents falling under any one of the following subparagraphs and keep them: Provided, That the same shall not apply to cases prescribed

2. The end of the tax invoice under Article 16 of the Value-Added Tax Act.