beta
(영문) 서울행정법원 2019.09.06 2018구합87651

종합소득세부과처분취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 11, 2012, the Plaintiff completed business registration (50% of the Plaintiff’s equity ratio) under the Housing Construction and Sales Business Act, and closed business on June 30, 2013.

B. On August 23, 2012, the Plaintiff and B obtained a building permit to newly construct 8 households of multi-household housing (hereinafter “instant housing”) on the ground of the member-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Ansan-si (hereinafter “instant housing”) and sold the housing after obtaining approval for use on December 15, 2012.

C. When the Plaintiff filed a comprehensive income tax for the year 2013, the Plaintiff calculated estimated income by applying the “simplified rate” under the foregoing provision, and applying the special tax reduction and exemption pursuant to Article 7(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 12853, Dec. 23, 2014; hereinafter the same) to a small and medium enterprise under Article 143(4)2(b) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25193, Feb. 21, 2014; hereinafter the same), if the Plaintiff and B leased the site of the instant housing before the commencement of the instant tax year, and paid a total of KRW 2,50,000 to the Plaintiff for five months from D (hereinafter “instant rent”).

As a result of the consolidated investigation of the Plaintiff, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office: (a) as a new business operator who commenced the business in 2013 when the sales revenue amount of the instant house was generated, the Plaintiff is in excess of the standard amount under Articles 143(4)1 and 208(5)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act; (b) as such, the amount of income should be estimated by applying the “standard expense rate” instead of the “simplified expense rate”, and (c) the Plaintiff did not engage in the construction business, so the tax data to the effect that the special tax reduction and exemption for the small and medium enterprises under