logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 청구인이 주류매입금액을 누락한 것으로 보아 매출금액을 환산하여 부가가치세 및 개별소비세를 과세한 처분의 당부
조세심판원 조세심판 | 2013-12-20 | 조심2013구1729 | 부가
[Case Number]

[Case Number] Trial 2013Gu1729 ( December 20, 2013)

[Items]

[C]Supplementary Rule ](Type of Decision ]

[Summary of Decision]

[Summary of Decision] In light of the fact that the applicant fails to prove that the computerized management account books, etc. of the alcoholic beverage purchaser were falsely prepared by objective evidence, the disposition office did not err by converting the amount of sales due to omission of purchase into the amount of sales due to omission of purchase

[Related Acts]

[Related Acts] Article 21 of the Value-Added Tax Act

【Reference Decision】

[Reference Decision] High Court Decision 2012Gu1269

【Disposition】

The appeal is dismissed.

【Reasoning】

1. Summary of disposition;

A. From May 26, 2005, the claimant is an entrepreneur who is engaged in entertainment drinking business under the trade name of OO's main store, and the director of the Regional Tax Office of OO (hereinafter referred to as the "director of the Regional Tax Office") conducted an investigation of tracking the distribution process of OO (hereinafter referred to as "OO") for the period of May 3, 201 through June 21, 201. As a result, the claimant conducted an investigation of tracking the distribution process of OO (hereinafter referred to as "OO") for the period of time from May 26, 2005, after confirming that the claimant failed to receive the purchase tax invoice even after being supplied with alcoholic beverages equivalent to the supply price of OO in the second taxable period from OO during the first and second taxable period from 2008 (hereinafter referred to as "the dispute amount") and notified it to the disposition authority as a derivatives from criminal investigation data.

B. As a result, the disposition agency deemed that the claimant purchased the key amount as non-data and omitted the sales declaration related to it, and then converted the sales amount into the key amount, and then notified the claimant of the application of value-added rate for the first quarter of 2008, the first quarter of 2008, the second quarter of 2009, the first quarter of 2009, the second quarter of 2009, the OOO, the second quarter of 2009, the second quarter of 2009, the total OO, the first quarter of 2008, the second quarter of 2008, the second quarter of 208, the second quarter of 200, the OOO for 208, the second quarter of 209, the second quarter of 209, the second quarter of 209, and the total OOO.

C. The claimant appealed and filed an appeal on April 5, 2013.

2. Opinions of the claimant and disposition agency;

A. The claimant's assertion

The claimant purchased alcoholic beverages from OO while running a virtual store, and made a cash settlement by the liquor purchase card.In the case of a small-scale enterprise such as the claimant, it purchases alcoholic beverages through cash settlement, the order is revoked or alcoholic beverages are supplied as equal to the settlement amount, and the sales members increase the order amount falsely in order to raise the performance, the disposition agency is improper to impose the value-added tax and the individual consumption tax without confirming the applicant based on the data determined to be investigated by the internal computerized data of OO sellers.

(b) Opinions of disposition agencies;

According to the survey data of the investigation agency on OO, it is confirmed that a sales company issued an excessive or excessive tax invoice by means of paying a transaction partner's liquor purchase card by depositing the cash into ATM account, payment without passbook, etc., and then paying the card after paying it into the transaction partner's liquor purchase card account. Since the claimant fails to prove that the electronic data management account book, etc. of OO was prepared by objective evidence, the disposition imposing value-added tax and individual consumption tax is justifiable by converting the sales amount due to omission of purchase of the issue amount into the sales amount.

3. Hearing and determination

(a) Points in dispute;

The propriety of the disposition imposing the value-added tax and the individual consumption tax by converting the sales amount into the amount of alcoholic beverage purchase omitted.

B. Facts and determination

(1) According to the review data of a disposition agency, such as a survey on the tracking of the distribution process of OO, etc., the investigating agency conducted an investigation on the tracking of the distribution process of OO from May 3, 201 to June 21, 201. For 208 and 2009 business years of OO based on the mer in which the accounting staff of the OO summarizeds a summary of the book-keeping method, etc., the computerized managementOO for the business years of 2008 and 2009; for 2010 business years, the list of accounts and the outstanding amount are deemed as the actual transaction file and the outstanding amount are deemed as the result of the report, and the list of sales tax invoices and the outstanding amount are deemed as operated and issued by the OOOO regardless of actual transactions, and it is deemed that the OOOO, the joint representative director of the tax invoice, the confirmation document, door-to-door and the end of the contract, and that the 10O or the total amount of the tax invoice supplied is less than 200 OO or more.

(2)Korea Won determined a reinvestigation on the OO's request for a tax invoice (2012Gu1269, July 4, 2012). The investigator conducted a reinvestigation for the period of July 23, 2012 and August 2, 2012, that the OO was deposited under the name of the OO's customer, and the payment card was deposited in order to adjust the amount of the tax invoice issued, and that it was not an excessive amount of the OO's request for the tax invoice issued at the time of the O's request for a tax invoice to be received by the OO's customer, but that it was not an excessive amount of the O's request for the tax invoice issued at the time of the O's request for a tax invoice to be received by the O's customer, but that it was not an excessive amount of the O's request for the tax invoice issued at the time of the O's request to be received by the O's customer, and that it was an excessive amount of the O's request for tax invoice issued at the time of sale.

(3) The disposition agency imposed the value-added tax by converting it into the value-added rate and adding it to the tax base for sales upon the claimant’s notice of taxation data that the investigating agency secured the OO’s computerized account books, etc. and the claimant informed that the purchase or omission of OO won during the second taxable period from 2008 to 2009.

Details of notification of taxation data on the claimant.

(O)(O):O

(4) The claimant asserts that the disposition of value-added tax, etc. is improper on the basis of the data investigated and determined by the internal computerized data of the OO, and that the applicant does not confirm the applicant based on the data determined by the OO, and that the disposition of this case is improper. The evidence presents the reason, the statement of transaction (OO, sales employees HaOO), the statement of purchase of alcoholic beverages (OO, 208 to 2009), and the account transaction details in which the purchase card price was settled. However, the claimant fails to prove that the above computerized book was prepared by objective evidence.

(5) According to the re-audit data, etc. of the POO, it is determined that the POO issued an excessive or excessive tax invoice by the POO to the customer purchase card account with cash received from the customer's liquor purchase card, and the POO issued the tax invoice by means of credit card payment, payment without passbook, etc. The POO did not prove that the OO's electronic data management, etc. was not prepared by objective evidence, and the POO's purchase price was not otherwise stated in the POO's disposition based on the following facts: (a) the OO re-listed on July 23, 2012 through August 2, 2012; (b) the OO issued the tax invoice to the 1,028 business establishments, including the claimant; and (c) the OO's sales and disposition was legitimate; and (d) the OOO issued the tax invoice by means of credit card settlement account with the customer's account account; (c) the OOOO's electronic data management, etc.

4. Conclusion

This case shall be decided as ordered in accordance with Articles 81 and 65 (1)2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, because the petition for a trial has no merit as a result of the review.

arrow