SKB paid ‘cash’ to combined Internet and TV customers… “Taxable” Court

society |

[서울=뉴스핌] Reporter Lee Seong-hwa = The court ruled that cash paid as a free gift to customers who subscribed to Internet and digital TV combination products was not subject to ‘enuri (discount)’ and was subject to taxation.

According to the legal community on the 4th, the 2nd Administrative Division of the Seoul Administrative Court (Chief Judge Shin Myung-hee) ruled against the plaintiff in a lawsuit to cancel the refusal to correct the value added tax filed by SK Broadband against the head of the Dobong Tax Office and others.

[서울=뉴스핌] Reporter Yoon Chang-bin = Seoul Administrative Court and Seoul Family Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul. 2022.01.14

Previously, SK Broadband provided either a bundling fee, customer support fund, or customer penalty when a customer signed up for a combined Internet and digital TV product in accordance with its marketing policy from around February 2015. Bundling commissions and customer penalties were paid to distribution network companies, and customer support funds were paid directly to customers in cash.

SK Broadband reported and paid value added tax for the first and second quarters of 2015, using the full amount paid by customers as the tax base. He subsequently filed a claim for a tax refund, claiming that the cash he had paid as a gift was a ‘depreciable amount’ which had been excluded from the value-added tax base, but he filed legal proceedings when it was not receive

The Value Added Tax Act excludes from the tax base an amount which deducts a certain amount directly from the normal price when supplying goods or services (enuri).

However, the court ruled that the money paid by SK Broadband to customers was not an allowance but a sales incentive.

The judge said, “The profit provided by the plaintiff depends on the choice of the distribution network company, not the customer, whether to get a consolidation fee on its own or to pay customer support or customer penalties to’ the customer.” However, it appears to have been provided for the purpose of a sales strategy to help distribution network companies attract more customers.”

In addition, “For the amount in this case to be considered as an allowance, it must be the amount deducted directly from the supply value of the goods or services supplied by the business operator.” It should be able to be evaluated as the same,” he explained.

“There is no provision in the terms and conditions of the plaintiff to directly reduce the amount of money in this case from the price of the service,” he said It is difficult to understand that it is linked to the price (monthly usage fee) or directly reduced from the price.”

The court rejected SK Broadband’s claim, saying, “It cannot be seen as something that directly reduces the amount of money in this case from the individual services provided by the plaintiff.”


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.