교차사용 및 정산이 이루어지는 포인트와 부가가치세법상 에누리액

This is a commentary on Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Du58959 Decided August 26, 2016, which determined whether the points used in cross market redemption and settlement of accounts constitute a discount under the Value-Added Tax Act. The bases of value-added tax include the receipt of pecuniary and non-pecuniary payments, but not discounts. Under the points system, which is used as a means to facilitate transactions for suppliers, customers are allotted points corresponding to a set rate of the purchase amount whenever they engage in a primary transaction to purchase goods and services, which is redeemable for discounts in a secondary transaction with the same supplier based on their accumulated points. Although not at issue in this case, the Court first determined that, in a points system involving a single supplier, only the money actually received from its customers in secondary transactions is included in tax base, to the exclusion of that part of the account settled by points, which constitutes a discount. This seems to be in accord with tax practices in Japan and the U.K. Meanwhile, there are cases in which multiple suppliers are pooled into a points system and customers are allowed to redeem the accumulated points at any store of those suppliers subscribed to the points system. The question presented in this case involves such a circumstance, where the suppliers settle accounts based on the points redeemed in secondary transactions. The Court held that in such a case as well, only the money actually received from the customer in secondary transactions is included in tax base, while the account settled by points constitutes a discount. The significance of the case is that, in determining the nature of reward points widely adopted in general consumption practices and their treatment under the Value-Added Tax Act, the Court explained in detail the legal doctrine on discounts, one of the most controversial issues involving the scope of tax base under the Value-Added Tax Act, while reaffirming the meaning of the no taxation without representation principle under the Constitution, by applying a limited interpretation to the enforcement decree provision, of which the mandatory basis in the mother-law is vague at best.