[법인세등부과처분취소][공1980.12.1.(645),13301]
The application of Article 62 of the Emergency Order on Economic Stabilization and Growth when determining the tax base and amount of tax based on the method of estimated investigation
Even in cases where the tax base and the amount of tax are determined by the method of estimated investigation, the preferential treatment for tax mitigation should be granted as long as the requirements prescribed in Article 62 of the Emergency Order Concerning Economic Stabilization and Growth (Presidential Emergency Order No. 15 of August 2, 1972) are met.
Articles 33(4) and 34 of the Corporate Tax Act, Article 62 of the Emergency Order Concerning Economic Stabilization and Growth (Presidential Emergency Order No. 15 of August 2, 1972)
Supreme Court Decision 78Nu220 Decided August 22, 1978
Dr. Cr. S. S. F.C.
Sejong, the director of the tax office shall transfer the litigation performer, Kim Jong-chul
Seoul High Court Decision 78Gu593 delivered on May 29, 1979
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
In imposing corporate tax, Article 33 (4) of the Corporate Tax Act provides that where a corporation imposes tax on the method of determining the so-called estimated assessment pursuant to Article 33 (4) of the same Act, the preferential treatment under the Corporate Tax Act may not be given pursuant to Article 34 of the same Act even if it is impossible to provide for the preferential treatment under the Corporate Tax Act (Presidential Emergency Order No. 15 of August 2, 1972), unlike the Corporate Tax Act, the purpose of the Emergency Order No. 15 is to ensure the stability and improvement of the economy and to promote the balanced growth of the national economy by taking emergency economic measures necessary for the rationalization of the industry and to promote the balanced growth of the national economy. Article 62 of the Emergency Order No. 62 of the same Act provides that where a corporation makes a capital increase by means of money investment in the government or a person other than the financial institution, it is not possible to interpret the provisions of the same Act from the same point of view as Article 34 of the Corporate Tax Act. Therefore, even if the tax base and amount of tax are determined by the method of estimated assessment, there is no error of law.
Therefore, this appeal is without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Ahn Byung-soo (Presiding Justice)