2013년도 부가가치세법 판례회고

The purposes of this paper are to carry out a general review the of the 2013 precedents of the Supreme Court that are related to value-added tax and to view the conclusions and the arguments of the six major precedents that have been published. First, Supreme Court March 28, 2013 Decision 2012DU26074 is the first decision that clarified the following：if an electronic tax invoice was issued, the duty to pay additional tax for a business that is involved in either the nontransmission of the tax invoice issue specification or the nonsubmission of the sum table of tax invoices on place of sales and on place of purchase is determined by whether a tax invoice issue specification was transmitted. This is not associated with the fact whether the sum table of tax invoices on place of sales and on place of purchase was submitted. Second, Supreme Court April 11, 2013 Decision 2011DU8178 is a decision that has confirmed that the supply value is the amount of compensation according to the basic principle of value of supply calculation of VAT, irrespective of the existence and the inexistence of a covenant on the increase and the decrease of compensation, its time, or the time of the increase and the decrease of compensation. Third, Supreme Court May 9, 2013 Decision 2011DU5834 clearly specified that to be exempted from value-added tax, medical health services must be provided by people like doctors, massage therapists stipulated in medical law and these must be provided as prescribed by medical law. Fourth, Supreme Court June 28, 2013 Decision 2013DU932 recognized the wide scope of ‘incidentality’, which is a requirement for the supply of incidental goods and incidental services. This kind of standard cannot prevent the scope of supply from expanding indefinitely under which incidental goods and incidental services are regarded as supply. Moreover, this paper is concerned that neutrality of taxation, meaning the fact that taxation must not influence the tax payment obligor’s choice, may be violated. Fifth, the outward issue of Supreme Court October 24, 2013 Decision 2011DU3623 was whether the contributed acceptance serve as supply of goods or supply of services. However, the real issue was that the rule of deemed supply may be applied to the goods on hand at the cessation of business. If the contributed acceptance was provided before the cessation of business, tax should be imposed on it similar to what applies to usual supply. There is no room for deemed supply system. The Supreme Court has the same opinion. However, the determination that they are not the goods on hand at the cessation of business simply because they have lost value while they are goods with input tax deduction is in disagreement with the intent and the purpose of the deemed supply system. Sixth, Supreme Court June 13, 2013 Decision 2010DU18369 understands construction of the wording ‘use’ in narrow sense, comparing with the construction made in the field of the private law. It is a reasonable conclusion, in the view that it is ‘teleological construction’ considering the purposes of the system at issue.