학교인수대금의 실질이 사례금이어서 상여처분하고 소득금액변동통지한 처분은 정당함[국승]
Seoul Administrative Court-2015-Gu Partnership-56892 ( January 11, 2015)
Any disposition that is disposed of as bonus after the substance of the purchase price of a school is recompense and that is notified of the change in income amount is legitimate.
Any disposition that is disposed of as bonus after the substance of the purchase price of a school is recompense and that is notified of the change in income amount is legitimate.
Article 21 of the Income Tax Act
2015Nu61100 Notice of change in amount of income
AAAAAA Corporation
BB Head of the Tax Office
Seoul Administrative Court 2015Guhap56892 (No. 11, 2015)
March 16, 2016
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The judgment of the first instance is revoked. On August 29, 2014, the notification of change in the income amount that the Defendant made to the Plaintiff on August 29, 2014, the income earner belonging to the Plaintiff as the CC and the income belonging to the Dooo,oo, andO is revoked.
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the plaintiff added a new judgment on the argument in the court of first instance under Paragraph (2). Thus, this Court cited it as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the text of Article 420
2. Additional determination
A. The plaintiff's assertion
The Plaintiff returned KRW 100 million fromCC on November 18, 2013. The Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014Gahap502587 rendered a settlement recommendation on April 17, 2015, which was rendered on April 17, 2015, refund of KRW 267 million from D (the “EECE Institute’s preparatory brief as of November 9, 2015 seems to have been written in writing). As such, the part of the amount of the instant disposition’s income should be adjusted.
B. Determination
1) Article 106(4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24357, Feb. 15, 2013; hereinafter the same) provides that "in cases where a domestic corporation collects the amount illegally released from the corporation, such as omitting sales and processing expenses, etc. within the period for filing a revised return under Article 45 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and includes them in its gross income as a result of tax adjustment, the disposal of income shall be deemed as retained earnings: Provided, That this shall not apply in cases where a corporation receives a notice of tax investigation; 1. Where it becomes known that it was commenced; 2. Where it becomes known that the amount was reverted to the representative, etc. of the relevant corporation, etc., and the amount was reverted to the corporation later, it cannot affect the income tax liability already established, and thus, it is a principle that disposal of income is carried out in accordance with the proviso of Article 106(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act. However, the main sentence of the same Article 106(4) fails to voluntarily recover the amount of income from the corporation.
2) Considering the overall purport of the arguments in this case as to Gap evidence Nos. 13 and 14 and Eul evidence Nos. 7, the defendant, regardless of the amount of 22 July 2, 2013 to October 4, 2013, conducted a tax investigation as to whether the amount of KRW 100 million was appropriated for the designated donation in 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "tax investigation of this case"), and the plaintiff received KRW 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,00.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.