2021년 소비세제 판례회고

Among the Supreme Court decisions made in 2021, the three cases on VAT were selected for this thesis. ① The Supreme Court decided, on January 14, 2021, that ‘officetels’ do not meet the criteria set under Article 106 (1) 4 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act that allows the VAT exemption for housing of a certain size or less(Case Number：2020Du40914). Despite the legislative purpose of the above tax exemption clause, the Supreme Court put more weight to the systematic interpretation of the term ’housing’ in relation to other tax laws. ② The Supreme Court decided, on October 28, 2021, that the tax invoice issued with the branch office as the "supplier" is an erroneous tax invoice because the Plaintiff received services from the head office, not the branch office(Case Number：2021Du39447). At the time of the supply of the service, the branch office is not a place of business because there were no resident employees, so the conclusion of the Supreme Court Decision is well established. ③ The Supreme Court decided, on December 30, 2021 that the input VAT is not deductible because the tax invoice received by the Plaintiff was an erroneous tax invoice made in the fraudulent transactions(Case Number： 2017Du72256). Also, this conclusion did not change even if the supplier paid all VAT on the sales from the fraudulent transactions and could not receive the refund of the VAT due to the expiration of the refund request period. In addition, the Court reaffirmed the existing Supreme Court's legal principles by stating that "the recognition that the state's tax revenue will be reduced" is necessary to apply the long-term period for tax imposition and penalty tax for unlawful under-reporting. However, the Court did not specify the criteria to determine whether there is such recognition.