propriety of a disposition that deducts input tax amount on the ground of a disguised processing tax invoice receipt

Where all or part of the items to be entered in a tax invoice are not entered or entered differently from the facts, the disposition that deducts the input tax amount is legitimate.

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 of KRW 23,254,600 on June 1, 2002 against the Plaintiff on June 1, 2005 and the imposition of value-added tax of KRW 12,740,410 on July 10, 2005 and value-added tax of KRW 8,070,720 on July 10, 2005 against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts shall not be disputed between the parties, or may be recognized by considering the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 3, 2-1, and 2-2:

A. From May 1, 200, the Plaintiff operated the clothing manufacturing company under the trade name of ○○○○○-dong from ○○○○○○○○○○-dong (excluding business registration number 0-○-○) during the taxable period of value-added tax from 2002 to 1st, 2003, as described in the tax invoice list, during the taxable period of value-added tax, the Plaintiff received total 20 copies, total 292, 16, 400 won (hereinafter referred to as the “tax invoice”) from ○○○-dong ○○○○-○○○○○’s commercial (hereinafter referred to as the “○○○ commercial for convenience”) and completed the pertinent tax return for each taxable period by deducting the purchase tax invoice equivalent to 20, total 292, 16, 400 won (hereinafter referred to as the “instant tax invoice”).

Table of Tax Invoice

Amount of taxable period

Date of issue

Suppliers

Value of Supply

(excluding value-added tax)

202. Second term portion

on January 20, 2002

○○○○○○

7,005,000 won

on April 30, 2002

“”

21,152,00 won

on January 20, 2008

“”

23,108,00 won

on January 20, 2009

“”

19,805,500 won

on January 30, 2002

“”

10,560,000 won

October 30, 2002

“”

15,708,00 won

November 30, 2002

“”

27,550,000 won

Total

142,754,500 won

203. First term portion

on 15, 2003

○○ Commercial

1,744,00 won

on January 30, 2003

“”

10,473,00 won

on 15, 2003

“”

21,375,00 won

on April 30, 2004

“”

6,543,00 won

on 15, 2003

“”

18,784,00 won

on April 30, 2005

“”

10,765,00 won

on 15, 2003

“”

10,367,00 won

Total

90,051,000 won

203. Second term portion

on 15, 2003

○○ Commercial

13,210,200 won

on 15, 2003

“”

1,186,00 won

on 15, 2003

“”

7,130,700 won

November 15, 2003

“”

16,543,00 won

December 15, 2003

“”

1,291,00 won

Total

59,360,900 won

B. On June 1, 2005, the Defendant imposed value-added tax amounting to KRW 23,254,60 on the Plaintiff on June 1, 2002, as indicated in the revised list of value-added tax, on July 10, 2003, value-added tax amounting to KRW 12,740,410, value-added tax amounting to KRW 8,070,720 on the first term portion of value-added tax, and KRW 2,070,720 on the second term portion of value-added tax on July 203, 203 (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant disposition”).

Details of correction of the value-added tax (unit: Won)

Amount of taxable period

output tax amount ①

Purchase Tax Amount ②

Motor Vehicle Doz.

(1) (1-2)

No. 50

v. penalty tax

Amount of tax notified after deduction

(3-No.4+N)

202. Second term portion

27,963,751

627,711

(14,903,109)

27,336,040

13,060,642

8,979,258

23,254,656

203. First term portion

29,942,167

5,153,247

(14,158,347)

24,788,920

15,783,820

3,735,315

12,740,415

203. Second term portion

26,665,080

12,015,575

(17,951,675)

14,649,505

8,713,405

2,134,621

8,070,721

C. The plaintiff filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal on October 11, 2005, and the National Tax Tribunal dismissed the plaintiff's appeal on July 25, 2006.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff received an order from the ○○○○ Company and the ○○○ Company and then paid the price by means of bank remittance, etc. As such, the instant tax invoice is not a false tax invoice, since it can be confirmed by the relevant transaction statement, deposit slip, and deposit-free deposit receipt, etc. Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition based on the premise that the instant tax invoice is a false tax invoice is illegal.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount)

(1) The amount of value-added taxes payable by an entrepreneur (hereinafter referred to as the “paid tax amount”) shall be the amount computed by deducting the tax amount under the following subparagraphs (hereinafter referred to as the “purchase tax amount”) from the tax amount on the goods and services supplied by him (hereinafter referred to as the “sales tax amount”): Provided, That where an input tax amount exceeds the output tax amount, it shall be a refundable tax amount (hereinafter

1. The tax amount for the supply of goods or services used or to be used for his own business;

2. The tax amount for the import of goods used or to be used for his own business; and

(2) The following input taxes 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;

(c) Fact of recognition;

The following facts may be acknowledged in light of the following facts in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4-1, 2, and 5 of the evidence Nos. 1, 2-3, 4-1, 4-2, and 5 of the evidence Nos. 1, 2-2

(1) On May 20, 2001, the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○-dong, type of business and/or category of business, and the lag○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s business registration, and completed the business registration on December 1, 2002, only the sales tax base of KRW 942,784,00 in total without any purchase during the period of the value-added tax, filed a report on the sales tax base of KRW 94,278,00 in total, and subsequently closed the business on December 1, 2002.

(2) On March 1, 2003, ○○○○○-dong ○○○○○○○-dong type of business registered as its business operator, and completed the business registration with “manufacturing/spacted goods, clothing processing, and the representative’s “○○○○○” at the place of business. On December 31, 2003, in the absence of purchase during the first and second taxable period of value-added tax, ○○○○○○○ was reported only the tax base of KRW 635,386,00 in total during the first taxable period of the value-added tax, and did not pay KRW 57,078,00 in total during the second taxable period, and then paid KRW 50,308,000 in value-added tax was voluntarily closed from the head of the tax office on December 31, 2003 by failing to pay KRW 50,308,000 in value-added tax.

(3) Around 2004, the head of the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Company, etc., which became final and conclusive on the data, received suspicions of receiving the processed purchase tax invoices of KRW 1,09,000,000 in total during the second taxable period of the value-added tax from eight companies, such as the Plaintiff, etc., ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Company, etc., on the basis of the data, and started an investigation into the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Company during the said taxable period. While the purchase tax invoices received by the ○○○○○○○○ Company from the final and conclusive company on the data, the ○○○○○○○ Company did not make an aggregate transaction of value-added tax on the Plaintiff, etc., or made an explanation of the remaining amount of the purchase tax invoices issued or reported to the ○○○○○○ Company’s trading.

In addition, ○○○ Company closed its business after filing a sales tax base without any purchase and without paying the value-added tax thereon. From the date of the first taxable period of the value-added tax, the company was suspected of receiving the processed purchase tax invoice of KRW 36,500,000 (not filing a value-added tax) during the first taxable period of the value-added tax, and investigated on the suspicion. Among the total 38 companies that received the purchase tax invoice from ○○ Company during the first and second taxable period of the value-added tax, three companies, including ○○○○, etc., such as ○○○○ Company, received a written answer from ○○○○ Company to ask for the transaction progress with ○○ Company, and received a revised return on the deduction of the value-added tax amount from ○○ Company, and 19 companies such as ○○ Trade Company did not clarify the fact of transactions.

(4) The Kim○, a lessor of ○○-dong ○○○-dong ○○○ Building, a place of business of the ○○○○○○○○○○○○ and the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○, a lessor of ○○-dong ○○ Building, concluded a lease agreement on the building with the ○○○○○○ upon the request of the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ to renew the lease agreement after being requested to renew the lease agreement in the largest name.

However, on June 8, 1996, the above ○○○ filed a complaint with the head of ○○ Tax Office as an actor of material facts related to the trade name of “○○ Unemployment”, and on December 30, 1996, the complaint was filed by the head of ○○ Tax Office as an actor of material facts related to the trade name “○○○ Unemployment” from the head of ○○ Tax Office, and on August 10, 1998, there was an accusation filed against the said head of ○○ Tax Office as an actor of material facts related to the trade name “○○○

In addition, since March 9, 2004, ○○○-dong, ○○○-dong, which completed the resident registration, but thereafter was revoked ex officio. Kim○-dong, ○○○ on December 7, 2005, where the father’s domicile on December 7, 2005, completed the resident registration with ○○○○-dong, ○○○○-dong, ○○○○○○○, where the father’s domicile is the father, but was ex officio ex officio after the completion of the resident registration, and the maximum ○○○ was completed on April 11, 2006, but became ex officio ex officio.

(5) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff transferred each of the above amount of KRW 15,710,00 on July 11, 2002, KRW 4,550,00 on July 23, 2002, KRW 4,550,00 on September 18, 2002, KRW 80,000 on September 17, 2002, KRW 17,278,80 on November 17, 2002, and KRW 17,278,80 on July 24, 2002 to the ○○○○○○○○○○○ Account (○-○) respectively. A person who deposited the above amount to the said ○○○○○○ Account during the above period did not deposit KRW 7,00,000 on July 24, 202, and most of the money deposited or withdrawn on July 18, 2012.

(6) On the other hand, on June 30, 2004, the head of the ○○○ Tax Office accused the head of the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, a nominal business operator, Kim○○, and a real offender, of the above facts charged in violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act. On July 22, 200 of the same year, the head of the ○○○ District Prosecutors’ Office accused him of the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, who is the nominal business operator, and the actual offender, of the above facts charged in

D. Determination

In light of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff received the instant tax invoice through a real transaction with the ○○○○○ Commercial and ○○○○○ Commercial and the ○○○○○ Commercial and the ○○○○○○ Commercial and the ○○○○○○○○○○○○ commercial and the ○○○○ Commercial and the ○○○○○ Commercial and the ○○○○ Commercial and the ○○○○○○○ commercial and the ○○○○ commercial and the ○○○○ commercial and the ○○○○ commercial and the ○○○○ commercial and the ○○○○ commercial and the ○○○○ commercial and the ○○○ commercial and the ○○○ commercial and the ○○○ commercial and the ○○○ commercial and the ○○ commercial and the ○○○ commercial and the ○○ commercial and the ○○ commercial and the ○○ commercial and the ○○ commercial and the ○○ commercial and the ○○ commercial and the ○○ commercial and the ○○ commercial and the ○○○○.

As to this, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff’s value-added rate (the value-added rate generated by an enterprise during a given period and the rate of sales for that period) is considerably different from the reality, such as that it was 97.75% on 2002, 82.78% on 1, 2003, and 54% on 2003. In light of this, the instant tax invoice is not a false tax invoice. However, in the case where the input tax amount is not deducted from the output tax amount under Article 17(2)1-2 of the Value-Added Tax Act, where all or part of the entries under Article 16(1)1 through 4 of the Value-Added Tax Act are not entered or entered differently from the fact, so long as the entries in the tax invoice are judged to have been entered differently from the fact, it does not vary from the fact that the value-added rate is high or that it is distinguishable from the reality.

Therefore, this case's disposition that the defendant denied the input tax deduction of the tax invoice of this case and imposed is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

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