법인세부과처분등취소
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The following facts are either in dispute between the parties or in accordance with the purport of Gap evidence of 1 to 6, Eul evidence of 2 and 4 (including the branch numbers where no special indication is made; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the whole pleadings, and there is no reflective evidence:
On December 4, 1989, the Plaintiff is a non-profit corporation established pursuant to the Korean Private School Promotion Foundation Act (hereinafter “Private School Foundation Act”) for the purpose of reasonably operating and managing affairs concerning the creation and financing of funds for the educational environment of private schools.
Pursuant to the Private School Foundation Act, the Plaintiff has established the Private School Promotion Fund and has operated a business to lend funds necessary for the improvement, repair, and expansion of the property of private school institutions and educational facilities and equipment (hereinafter referred to as “instant loan business”).
Upon reporting corporate tax from 2011 to 2015, the Plaintiff filed a report on all interest income accrued from the instant loan business as a reserve fund and included in deductible expenses.
(B) No. 1-1) The Plaintiff has used the reserves included in deductible expenses for re-loans by incorporating them into the financial resources of the financing business.
B. From May 2, 2016 to June 3, 2016, Daegu regional tax office conducted a regular tax investigation with respect to the Plaintiff, and as a result, on July 26, 2016, the Plaintiff notified the Plaintiff of the result of tax investigation that the instant loan business constitutes a profit-making business and does not constitute a proper purpose business prescribed in Article 29 of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 56 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. As such, the Plaintiff denied all the reserves for proper purpose business appropriated as deductible expenses from 2011 to 2015 to impose the same disposition as stated in the purport of the claim.
On August 26, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a request for pre-assessment review with the National Tax Service, but the National Tax Service decided not to accept the said request on October 28, 2016.
The defendant on January 2016.