beta
(영문) 광주지방법원 2012. 05. 17. 선고 2011구합4909 판결

소득세법상 중소기업은 국내법인을 전제로 한 규정임[국승]

Case Number of the previous trial

early 201luminous2533 ( October 11, 2011)

Title

Under the Income Tax Act, small and medium enterprises are provided on the premise of domestic corporations.

Summary

The reduction of tax rates due to the transfer of shares by small and medium enterprises under the Income Tax Act is a provision for tax support for domestic small and medium enterprises in accordance with the legislative intent of the Framework Act on Small and Medium Enterprises, so foreign corporations

Related statutes

Article 104 of the Income Tax Act

Article 118-5 of the Income Tax Act

Cases

2011Guhap4909 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

Plaintiff

United StatesA

Defendant

Head of Seogju Tax Office

Conclusion of Pleadings

May 3, 2012

Imposition of Judgment

May 17, 2012

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 for the year 2009 against the Plaintiff on July 1, 201 shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 13, 2009, the Plaintiff transferred the shares of DD D D D Limited and three other corporations (hereinafter “Nonindicted Companies”) (hereinafter “instant shares”) to EE in Hong Kong located, to EE in Hong Kong.

B. On February 26, 2010, the Plaintiff deemed the instant shares as shares of small and medium enterprises and applied Article 118-5(1)3(a) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9774, Jun. 9, 2009; hereinafter the same) to KRW 00 as transfer income tax by applying 10% of the tax rate under Article 118-5(1)3(a) to the Defendant.

C. On July 1, 2011, the Defendant determined that the instant shares were issued by a foreign corporation, and determined that they do not constitute shares of small and medium enterprises, and applied the tax rate of 20% under Article 118-5(1)3 (b) of the former Income Tax Act, and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 000 of the transfer income tax for the year 2009 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. On July 11, 201, the Plaintiff appealed to the Tax Tribunal, and the Tax Tribunal dismissed the said appeal on October 11, 201.

[Reasons for Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1, 2, and Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since small and medium enterprises under Article 118-5 (1) 3 (a) of the former Income Tax Act do not mean only domestic corporations, non-party companies are foreign corporations, their size, etc.

As above, the tax rate for the transfer of the instant shares ought to apply 10% of the transfer rate of shares to small and medium enterprises. Therefore, the instant disposition on a different premise is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

According to Article 118-5 (1) 3 of the former Income Tax Act, income tax shall be calculated by applying 10% tax rates to small and medium enterprises in the year concerned, and 20% tax rate to other stocks (in the case of small and medium enterprises under the provisions of subparagraph 3 of Article 118-2, the number of small and medium enterprises shall be 10%, and shall be small and medium enterprises under the provisions of Article 104 (1) 4 (a) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21765 of Oct. 1, 209) so that they can become small and medium enterprises under the conditions that they can be able to develop new and medium enterprises, and small and medium enterprises shall be able to develop new and medium enterprises under the provisions of Article 17 of the Framework Act on Small and Medium Enterprises, and small and medium enterprises shall be able to develop new and medium enterprises under the provisions of Article 21 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2193200, Jul. 25, 2019).

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.