과세연도 중간에 합병이 이루어진 경우 합병 후 승계연구소에서 발생한 연구비에 대한 세액공제 방법[국승]
Daejeon District Court-2015-Gu Partnership-101718 ( April 27, 2016)
The method of tax credit for research expenses incurred by the succeeded research institute after the merger in the middle of the taxable year;
(The same as the judgment of the court of first instance) Where the whole business of a non-conforming corporation is succeeded, the annual average amount of research expenses for the immediately preceding four years shall be calculated by dividing it by the number of months in the business year from the date of merger
Article 10 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act
2016Nu1146 Revocation of Disposition of Refusal to Request Corporate Tax Revision
Aaa Limited Liability Company
The Director of the National Tax Service
Daejeon District Court 2015Guhap101718 ( April 27, 2016)
August 11, 2016
September 1, 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 shall be revoked. The corporate tax for the business year 2010 that the defendant against the plaintiff on March 11, 2014
The portion exceeding 33,677,133 won among the disposition rejecting a request for correction of KRW 742,714,243 shall be revoked.
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the following parts. Thus, the reasoning for this Court’s explanation is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Parts to be dried;
A. On the 6th judgment of the court of first instance, the "illegal, invalid and unlawful" of the 10th judgment has been taken into account as "an unlawful and unlawful act," and "an invalid and invalid act."
B. Part 3 through 17 of the judgment of the court of first instance have been adopted as follows. However, considering that the number of months after the merger in the middle of the pertinent taxable year is 'number of months after the merger' as the plaintiff's assertion, it is limited to research institute expenses of this case before the merger (from January 1, 2010 to June 30, 201) by the merged corporation's research institute expenses prior to the merger (from January 1, 2010 to June 31, 2010). Since the merger (from July 1, 2010 to December 31, 2010 to the date of the merger, the total amount of research expenses incurred for the immediately preceding 40 years could not be deducted from the annual average of the research expenses incurred for the immediately preceding 4 years by the merged corporation's annual average of the research expenses incurred for the immediately preceding 2,045,185,51 of the total of the research expenses incurred for the previous 4.10 years after the merger, it appears that the merger would not have been unreasonable.
In addition, Article 10 (1) 3 (a) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act stipulates that "where general research and human resources development expenses incurred for the pertinent taxable year exceed the annual average of the expenses incurred for the development of general research and human resources for four years retroactively from the commencing date of the pertinent taxable year, the amount equivalent to 40/100 (50/10 in the case of a small or medium enterprise) of the excess amount shall be the amount of tax credit, and "the pertinent taxable year" under the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act refers to "the pertinent taxable year of a person who intends to obtain the tax credit". Thus, it seems that "the number of months of the pertinent taxable year" under Article 9 (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act is "the number of months of the person who intends to obtain the tax credit for the pertinent taxable year after the merger" rather than "the number of months of the relevant taxable year of the person who intends to obtain
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just as it is concluded, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.