[법인세부과처분취소청구사건][고집1982(특별편),248]
The nature of the reserve for business rationalization prescribed in Article 16 of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (Law No. 2678)
The accumulation of reserves for corporate rationalization under Article 16 of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (Act No. 2678) is not a requirement to be implemented first in order to obtain corporate tax reduction or deduction, but a requirement to be met at the time of disposal of profits for the business year in which the reduction or exemption of corporate tax is made after obtaining the reduction or exemption of corporate tax, and is a requirement to be exempted from additional collection equivalent to the reduction or exemption of corporate tax amount.
Article 16 of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (Act No. 2678), Article 17 of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (Act No. 2678)
Samyang Livestock Development Corporation
Head of the Do Tax Office
The Defendant’s disposition imposing KRW 1,089,677 as corporate tax for the business year of 1978 and KRW 21,053,296 as corporate tax for the business year of 1979, and the amount exceeding KRW 76,49 as corporate tax for the business year of 1978 and KRW 139,407 as corporate tax for the business year of 1978 is revoked, respectively.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.
The same shall apply to the order.
1. According to Gap evidence 1-1, 2, Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 1-1 through 30, Eul evidence 2-1 through 24, Eul evidence 3-1 through 5, Eul evidence 4-1 through 6, and the whole purport of the pleadings, the plaintiff submitted the tax base of the above 1978, 1979, 4-8 (2) 11 of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act, which was enforced at the time of the above business year of 1979, 197, 2-196, 3-19, 97, 97, 197, 197, 97, 197, 196, 197, 197, 3-19, 196, 197, 196, 197, 3-19, 196, 3-19, 196, 197, 3-19, 197,
(B) The Plaintiff’s corporate tax base amount for the business year 1978 is KRW 4,377,263, and the amount of the Plaintiff’s tax base amount for the business year 1979 was 51,279,544, and the Defendant’s application for the above reduction and exemption based on this, and the Defendant’s calculation of each corporate tax as stated in column 1 (1978) and column 2 (1979) of the attached tax calculation table, and then the disposition of this case imposed on the Plaintiff as of January 16, 1981, respectively.
2. (A) The Defendant’s litigation performer asserts that the instant disposition is legitimate, inasmuch as the Plaintiff Company runs the livestock industry under Article 4-8(1)1 of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act, and as such, the amount equivalent to the abated or exempted tax amount at the time of disposing profits in the pertinent business year is accumulated as a corporate rationalization reserve, as long as the amount of net profit per month remains up to the deficit brought forward.
(B) In light of the purport of Article 16 of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act or Article 17 of the same Act, the accumulation of reserves for enterprise rationalization as required by Article 16 of the same Act is not the requirement to be performed first for corporate tax reduction or exemption, but the requirement after the person who has been granted the reduction or exemption of corporate tax after receiving the reduction or exemption of corporate tax, to be performed at the time of disposal of profits for the business year in which the reduction or exemption of corporate tax was made, and it is reasonable to deem that it is only the requirement to be exempted from additional collection equivalent to the reduction or exemption of corporate tax (see Supreme Court Decision 79Nu403 delivered on February 10, 1981, Supreme Court Decision 79Nu403 delivered on February 10, 198). In this case where the defendant did not have any fact that the defendant exempted corporate tax against the plaintiff (the plaintiff applied for reduction or exemption under the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act, but the defendant did not accept it and could not immediately make the disposition in this case.
(C) However, according to Article 2(2) of the above Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act, it is clear that the corporate tax to be reduced or exempted under the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act does not include the penalty tax for the Plaintiff corporation. Thus, among the dispositions in this case by the Defendant, the part of the disposition in this case exceeding 76,449 won (the sum of the penalty tax for the business year of 1979) 139,407 won (the sum of the penalty tax for the business year of 1979) and the amount of the penalty tax for the business year of 1979 cannot be predicted, and the unpaid penalty tax for the main case of which the corporate tax is reduced or exempted cannot be predicted. Thus, the part of the disposition in this case which exceeds the amount of tax reduction and exemption after deducting the penalty tax amount of 1,901,262 won from the unpaid amount of 2,040,69 won.
3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by applying Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.
Judges Kim Yong-han (Presiding Judge)