295 0

세금계산서상 하자에 대한 세금계산서를 발급하는 자와 발급받는 자의 책임의 비교법적 고찰

Title
세금계산서상 하자에 대한 세금계산서를 발급하는 자와 발급받는 자의 책임의 비교법적 고찰
Other Titles
A Comparative Study on the Responsibility of the Issuer of Tax Invoice and its Receiver for Defects on Tax Invoice
Author
오윤
Keywords
부가가치세; 세금계산서; 주의의무; 입증책임; 매입세액공제; Value Added Tax; tax invoice; duty of care; burden of proof; input tax credit
Issue Date
2016-06
Publisher
한국국제조세협회
Citation
조세학술논집, v. 32, NO 2, Page. 83-117
Abstract
본고에서 연구자는 세금계산서상 하자에 대한 책임을 발급하는 자와 발급받은 자 중 누가 어떤 방식으로 져야 하는가에 대해 연구하였다. 세금계산서 관련 일탈행동은 세금계산서를 발급하는 자 쪽에서 먼저 그 계기를 제공하는 경우가 많다. 이 과정에서 세금계산서를 발급받은 사업자가 발급과 동시에 세액까지 거래징수당했는데 매입세액공제를 받지 못하는 일이 적지 않게 발견된다. 선량한 관리자로서의 주의의무를 다한 경우에는 매입세액공제를 허용한다는 법적용관행이 자리 잡고 있지만, 실제 주의의무를 다한 것으로 인정받기는 매우 어렵게 되어 있다. 일본에서는 국세청 기본통칙으로 그 요령을 예시하고 있다. 독일의 법원은 최근 주의의무를 다하지 않은 것에 대한 입증책임을 과세관청에 지우는 판결을 내놓고 있다. 발급받은 자에 대해서는 입증책임을 완화하는 방법으로 억울한 일이 발생하지 않도록 하여야 할 것이다. 입증책임에 관해서는 법원이 판단하는 것이 원칙이지만, 일정한 절차를 밟은 경우에는 과실 없음을 추정하는 safe harbor 조항을 부가가치세법에 도입하는 것이 바람직하다. 다른 한편으로는 부가가치세를 거래징수한 자가 그 징수한 세금을 납부하지 않고 사라지는 일련의 거래활동에 가담하는 매입자의 책임을 묻는 제도를 입법화할 필요가 있다. In this paper, the author made a research on who between the two of the issuer of tax invoice and its receiver and has to take responsibility for its defects under the Value Added Tax Act("the VATA") of Korea and how the person has to take such responsibility. The illegitimate activities of taxpayers often tend to be motivated and instigated by the issuer of tax invoice. It is not unusual that the receiver of tax invoice finds himself deprived of the right of input tax credit, even though he has already paid value added tax to the issuer of tax invoice and received the invoice believing it as legitimate evidence for the credit. The courts established that the receiver of the invoice may keep the right of input tax credit as far as he may prove that he exercised the duty of care and was not negligent at the time of the transaction. But we may hardly find actual cases where the courts found that the receiver has proved his successful exercise of the duty of care. In Japan, the National Tax Agency has published a guideline for the receiver which prescribes the method on how to check the identity of the issuer. The German courts seem to throw the burden of proof on the tax authorities in recent court cases. The tax authorities have to prove that the receiver was negligent during the transaction process. The VATA in Korea may well introduce a provision to mitigate the burden of proof of the receiver. Basically, the courts have to determine on to whom the burden of proof is given for the finding of facts. Keeping such basic principles of court proceedings intact, the VATA may introduce a safe harbor provision that the receiver is presumed to have exercised due care if he follows the prescribed procedures under the VATA. On the other hand, a system for the government side also has to be introduced in the VATA to have the receiver of invoice who knows or should have known with due care the intent of the issuer of invoice not to pay the tax collected to the tax office to share the responsibility to pay the tax collected by the issuer (the so called "missing trader").
URI
http://www.dbpia.co.kr/Journal/ArticleDetail/NODE06725143https://repository.hanyang.ac.kr/handle/20.500.11754/71794
ISSN
1598-477X
Appears in Collections:
SCHOOL OF LAW[S](법학전문대학원) > Hanyang University Law School(법학전문대학원) > Articles
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Export
RIS (EndNote)
XLS (Excel)
XML


qrcode

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

BROWSE