[법인세등부과처분취소][집30(4)특,36;공1983.2.1.(697)214]
(a) Requirements for setting aside unfair practices;
(b) Cases where the omission of entry alone does not constitute an unfair act;
A. The denial of wrongful calculation under Article 20 of the Corporate Tax Act shall be the one that reduces the tax burden on income by a domestic corporation in a transaction with a person with a special relationship as prescribed by the Presidential Decree under the provisions of Article 20 of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 46 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. The act of basic facts that are the object of the denial shall be the truth, and the act of basic facts that are the object of the denial shall not be permitted to be a analogical interpretation or an expanded interpretation in accordance with the general principles of interpretation of tax laws and regulations, and the principle of substantial taxation shall be applied strictly.
B. solely on the ground that the Plaintiff’s sales price and bank loans were omitted in the account book, each of the above amounts is deemed to have been lent to a person with a special relationship without confirming who actually performed an act of lending or lending without compensation in transactions with a person with a special relationship as stipulated in the above corporate tax law, and the part of the Defendant’s taxation of the corresponding corporate tax imposed by adding each recognized interest based on the above sales price and loan amount to the Plaintiff’s gross income in accordance with Articles 46(2)7 and 47 of the Enforcement Decree is unlawful.
Article 20 of the Corporate Tax Act; Article 46(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act; Article 46(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act; Article 47 of
Young Doksan Co.
Head of tax office
Gwangju High Court Decision 79Gu34 delivered on August 20, 1980
The part of the judgment of the court below regarding the imposition of corporate tax shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the Gwangju High Court.
The plaintiff's remaining appeals are dismissed.
The costs of appeal against the dismissed portion shall be assessed against the plaintiff.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the disposition of corporate tax:
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the above disposition of this case was unlawful, i.e., 00 won of corporate tax for the business year from 1976.4.1 to 31, 197, 200 won of the company's total amount of 1,426,920 won, and 30,00 won of the company's total amount of 1,60 won and 97,00 won of the company's total amount of 9,00 won were collected from 10,60 won of the company's 70,000 won and 9,000 won of the company's 70,000 won of the company's 9,000 won of the above corporate tax for 60,000 won of the company's 70,000 won of the above corporate tax for 1,60,000 won of the company's profits and 97,000 won of the company's profits.
Therefore, according to the records, the court below's finding that the plaintiff purchased the above 940 Won and did not enter the above 10,000 won in the above 10-year corporate tax for the above 60-year corporate tax base for the above 10-year corporate tax, and the above 10-year corporate tax base for the non-party 1 to the above 6-year corporate tax revenue and the non-party 1 to whom the above 10-year corporate tax had been imposed on the non-party 1 to the above 0-year corporate tax base and the non-party 1 to whom the above 10-year corporate tax had not been imposed on the non-party 1 to the non-party 6-year corporate tax and the non-party 1 to whom the above 10-year corporate tax had not been imposed on the non-party 1 to the above 6-year corporate tax base for the non-party 1 to whom the above 10-year corporate tax base had not been imposed on the non-party 1 to the above 2 corporate tax base
2. With respect to the disposition of value-added tax:
In full view of the adopted evidence and arguments, the court below recognized that the plaintiff sold 200 feed to non-party 4 for the taxable period of the value-added tax for the second half-year period from July 1, 1977 (from July 1, 1977 to December 31, 197), 34,560 won for feed 146 won for non-party 5, and 6 to non-party 1,056,40 won for feed 212 to non-party 6, while omitted for the total amount of the value-added tax, and determined that the defendant imposed the value-added tax equivalent to the above amount of the net sales calculated by subtracting the value-added tax included in the above amount of the plaintiff's income by adding it to the amount of the value-added tax for the corresponding amount of the value-added tax for the taxable period of the value-added tax for the second time period from July 1, 1977. In light of the records, the court below's fact finding and judgment are fully acceptable, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of law.
3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below concerning the imposition of occasional corporate tax and additional tax on this case shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the Gwangju High Court which is the court below. The remaining appeal shall be dismissed and the costs of appeal on this part shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices O Sung-sung(Presiding Justice)