Whether the purchase price of disguised processing tax invoices is recognized as necessary expenses

No evidence exists to prove that a tax invoice was issued after the plaintiff received the delivery and paid the price, and that the amount confirmed to have been remitted to the customer is about 10% of the amount of this case, and thus, the disposition of this case is legitimate.

Article 27 (Calculation of Necessary Expenses) of the Income Tax Act

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The Defendant’s imposition of global income tax of KRW 7,626,070 for the Plaintiff on August 2, 2006, KRW 25,192,680 for the year 2003, and KRW 6,549,410 for the year 2004 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff received a purchase tax invoice (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) equivalent to the total value of KRW 132,080,000,000 (hereinafter “amount”) from 1,002 from 1, 200 to 1, 204, under the trade name of “○○ Industry”, and filed a global income tax return by including the said amount in necessary expenses, and accordingly, received an input tax deduction from the Defendant on the said amount.

B. On August 2, 2006, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition that deemed that the instant tax invoice was a processed tax invoice issued by Park○-○ without a real transaction, and did not include the amount equivalent to the said amount in necessary expenses, and imposed each comprehensive income tax on the Plaintiff stated in the purport of the claim.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without any dispute, Gap evidence 1-1-3, Gap evidence 12-1-1 to 10, Eul evidence 1-3, Eul evidence 2-1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant tax invoice was issued after the Plaintiff was supplied with heavy equipment 39 punishment and presses processing parts from the estimated ○○○ operated by the Plaintiff, and paid the price. Thus, the instant tax invoice was unlawful for the instant disposition, without recognizing the instant amount as necessary expenses.

B. Determination

In light of the following circumstances: (a) the tax invoice of this case was registered in the name of ○○○ on February 7, 2001; (b) it is difficult to acknowledge that the pertinent tax invoice was registered in the name of ○○○○○ on the basis of the overall purport of entry and pleading in the evidence Nos. 3 and 4, and evidence Nos. 6-1 through 3, Gap evidence Nos. 8, and Eul evidence Nos. 3-1 through 4; and (c) it is hard to recognize that the pertinent tax invoice was registered in the name of ○○○ on the basis of the following circumstances: (a) it is difficult to recognize that the pertinent type of business was “the manufacturing business of machinery parts, which is not “the manufacturing business of machinery parts,” and (d) it is difficult to recognize that the pertinent tax invoice was issued in the aggregate of KRW 60,000,000 for the period from 1 to 104,000,000 won, and (d) it is not equivalent to KRW 1650,0,00,00.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case based on the premise that the tax invoice of this case was issued along with real transactions with ○○○ is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.