2022년 소비 및 재산 과세 판례회고

It is often a question how to calculate the supply value when various means are devised and used to increase sales. There are several cases that have become an issue whether the supply value can vary when economic benefits are given to those who use mobile communication services while selling mobile devices as subsidies. There was a ruling that the mobile device purchase subsidy could not be included in the supply price, when a single operator sells a mobile device through an agency providing a mobile communication service, if the price of the mobile device supplied to users who have agreed to use mobile communication services for a certain period of time does not include the subsidy received from the agency. On the condition of subsidy support, it was judged that there were discounts in both transactions between mobile carriers and agents and transactions between agents and users. In addition, it was considered the same even if the subsidy was given in the form of points so that the user could pay some of the purchase price of the mobile device with points and received only the rest of the payment. However, if there is a separate business operator that provides mobile communication services and a business operator that sells mobile devices, the supply value of mobile communication service provider does not change even if they give subsidies to those who use mobile communication services for a certain period of time. Mobile communication service provider can reduce the price of mobile communication services they provide in a way that gets less for mobile communication services. In addition, the price of mobile communication services can be reduced by paying for the purchase of the mobile device. Whatever method is chosen, if the price of mobile communication services has been reduced, the amount should be subtracted from the supply value. When determining the place of supply services took place, the Supreme Court presented the criteria for where an important and essential part of the services provided was made. In the case where a credit card company issued a credit card attached a trademark of U.S. corporation that could be used at overseas merchants, it was judged that the place of service provided by the U.S. corporation was in Korea. The service provided by the United States corporation was to provide services and related information for credit cards to be used in foreign countries. In the process, credit card companies, who are supplied, should cooperate. When determining the place of supply, the place where the cooperative act was made should be considered as well. However, it should not be the only criteria. If a taxpayer commits an improper act and the improper act causes the national tax to be evaded or refunded, limitation period of imposition of national tax is extended. The Supreme Court ruled that taxpayers should recognize that the state’s tax revenue would decrease at this situation. However, evading national taxes or receiving refunds does not always reduce the country’s tax revenue. Until now, the Supreme Court’s rulings have put these requirements only in relation to Value-added Tax. If the supplier reports it as sales tax and the person who receives deduct only the amount paid as input tax, the principle of Value-added Tax is kept. The Supreme Court seems to have noted this point. It is not disadvantageous to taxpayers as it strengthens the requirements for extending the limitation period of imposition. However, it does not fit the text of the statute. If the taxpayer does not report or pay properly on time due to improper acts, the additional tax is imposed heavier than when he/she did not commit improper acts. Additional taxes are imposed as administrative sanctions for not reporting or paying properly on time, and improper acts cause the additional taxes to be more severe. At this time, the question is who should do the improper act. The Supreme Court said that additional taxes could be imposed heavily even if not only the taxpayer himself but also a third party committed an improper act. However, the scope of a third party is limited to those by whom the taxpayers get benefit from the expansion of the area of conduct. By the way, the issue was whether the additional tax could be imposed heavily if the title trust did an improper act when taxing the gift tax on the title trust as a gift. The Supreme Court said that since the taxpayer must commit an improper act, additional taxes cannot be imposed heavily on the title trustee even if the title truster has committed an improper act. It is contrary to the previous judgment that even if a third party committed an improper act, the additional tax could be imposed heavily. It may have been considered that the title trustee who bears the tax obligation does not benefit from the expansion of the area of conduct by the title truster. Alternatively, it may focus on the legislative purpose of sanctioning title trusts. Additional taxes are sanctions for the taxpayer’s neglect of his or her duties. Therefore, the taxpayer should not be severely sanctioned on the grounds that a third party has committed an improper act. If so, the conclusion is correct that the additional tax can be imposed heavily only when the taxpayer commits an improper act. It is necessary to pay attention to the subsequent judgment to how far the meaning of this judgment will reach. The Supreme Court has firmly maintained its attitude that once it was regarded as a gift and taxed, it cannot be regarded as a gift again even if the same property was trusted in the name. Through this interpretation, it was possible to reduce the scope of taxation by considering title trusts as gifts. However, it is difficult to understand the argument that as a result of considering the initial title trust as a gift, the title trustee has ownership, so gift tax cannot be levied again on the same property after that. On the other hand, the Supreme Court said that when a title trust is regarded as a gift, gift tax can be levied even if the donor and recipient generated by consideration become the same. Although it does not add up, this judgment seems inevitable unless it is resolved by legislation because it is a result of the effect of the deeming profits.