2018년 부가가치세 및 관세 판례회고 (Review of 2018 Value-Added Tax Act and Customs Act Cases)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국세법학회
· 수록지 정보 : 조세법연구 / 25권 / 2호 / 185 ~ 274페이지
· 저자명 : 오광석

초록

2018년 중 부가가치세법과 관련하여 선고된 대법원 판결은 총 4건이 확인된다. 이에 본 글에서는 2018년에 선고된 4건의 부가가치세 대법원 판결을 모두 소개한다. ① 대법원 2018.1.25. 선고 2017두55329 판결은 한국철도공사가 노약자 등에게 운임을 감면하는 등 일정한 공익서비스를 제공하고 국가로부터 지원금을 받은 경우, 그 지원금이 부가가치세 과세표준에 포함되지 않는다는 취지로 판단하였고, ② 대법원 2018.4.12. 선고 2017두65524 판결은 온실가스 감축실적(배출권)이 부가가치세 과세대상인 ‘권리’에 해당한다고 보았다. ③ 대법원 2018.6.28. 선고 2017두68295 판결은 회생계획에서 ‘출자전환 후 전부 무상소각’이라고 규정한 경우도 대손세액공제 사유가 된다고 보았으며, ④ 대법원 2018.4.26. 선고 2016두48362 판결은 가맹본사와 가맹점사업자 간에 재화 또는 용역의 공급이 있었는지 여부를 계약을 중심으로 판단하였다. ⑤ 한편 2017.12.에 선고된 판결이기는 하지만 허위 세금계산서라고 해도 전자세금계산서로 발급되고 그 명세가 전송된 이상 세금계산서 합계표 부분은 처벌되지 않는다는 취지의 대법원 2017.12.28. 선고 2017도11628 판결도 살펴본다.
관세법으로는 아시아․태평양무역협정상 직접운송 간주 요건을 충족하기 위한 서류로서 통과선하증권이 반드시 제출될 필요는 없다는 대법원 2019.1.17. 선고 2016두45813 판결이 주목할만하다.

영어초록

Supreme Court rendered only four decisions concerning value-added tax (‘VAT’) in 2018. This review not only introduces but also analyzes all four cases since each case has significant implications. This review also introduces one important but not well known VAT decision rendered in December 2017.
The five VAT related decisions are as follows：(1) KORAIL (Korea Railroad Corporation) provided several services for the public good such as offering a discount for the disabled, and providing rail service in the backwoods, and etc. and in return received subsidies from the Korean government. The Supreme Court ruled that the above-mentioned subsidies should not be included both (ⅰ) in the VAT taxable amount and (ⅱ) in a denominator when calculating deductible proportion for a taxable person which provides both VAT taxable and non-taxable goods or services by Supreme Court Decision 2017du55329 rendered on January 25, 2018. (2) On April 12, 2018, the Supreme Court Decision 2017du65524 ruled that the right to omit green-house gases should be considered as a ‘right’ which falls under ‘goods’ category thus being VAT taxable. This review introduces a discussion regarding the treatment of ‘service/goods vouchers’ as ‘a right’ or ‘merely a promise to provide services/goods’. (3) In Korean debt rehabilitation process, the court approved a rehabilitation schedule which included debt-equity swap and cancellation of all shares which were issued by the debt-equity swap. On June 28, 2018., the Supreme Court Decision 2017du68295 ruled that the supplier (creditor) is permitted to have a VAT credit for the debt-equity swap and cancellation of all shares conducted by the rehabilitation schedule. (4) There was an interesting case concerning the issue of the VAT treatment for franchise services. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of the agreement which reflected each party’s free will when interpreting VAT treatment in Supreme Court Decision 2016du48362 rendered on April 26, 2018. (5) According to the precedents before the Supreme Court Decision 2017do 11628 rendered on December 28, 2017., a taxpayer was subject to aggravated criminal punishment if he/she issued/received fictitious VAT invoices of KRW 1.5 billion or more and filed the sum-table which reflect the same fictitious VAT invoices. The Supreme Court practically overturned its prior position in ruling that if the fictitious Vat invoices were issued/received electronically, the amount for the sum table was not punishable anymore. Accordingly, the tax payer is subject to punishment for the issuance/receipt of the fictitious VAT invoices only.
There was no meaningful Supreme Court decision relating to the Customs Act rendered in 2018, but there was one rendered in January 2019. ASIA-PACIFIC TRADE AGREEMENT (‘APTA’) adopts Direct Consignment Rule but the documents required to be considered as ‘direct consignment’ is not specified by the APTA itself but by the Operational procedure for the Certification and Verification for the Origin of Goods under APTA (‘Operational procedure’) and the Korean domestic presidential decree reflecting the Operational procedure. One of the required documents is the through B/L. However it was almost impossible to receive the through B/L when importing goods from China since there was no carrier which can issue it. The Supreme Court Decision 2016du45813 ruled that the through B/L is not a mandatory document to be considered as ‘direct consignment’ and thus can be supplemented or replaced by other documents.

참고자료

· 없음