[법인세부과처분취소][미간행]
[1] In order to obtain a reduction or exemption under Article 7(1) of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction or Exemption Act, whether the application for reduction or exemption is a requisite procedural requirement (negative), and the purport of Article 11(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act
[2] The case holding that when a corporation applies for reduction or exemption of corporate tax only for the logistics business among the manufacturing businesses and logistics businesses that are the business subject to reduction or exemption concurrently operated by the corporation, it shall include not only the income generated from the logistics business but also the income generated from the manufacturing business (including the loss carried forward)
[3] Whether interest income and special benefits from business transfer constitute reduction or exemption income under Article 7(1) of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (negative), and the scope of interest paid in relation to the business subject to reduction or exemption as deductible expenses
[1] Article 7(1) and (3) of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 5584, Dec. 28, 1998; see current Article 7(2) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act); Article 7(4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15976, Dec. 31, 1998; see current Article 6(5) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15970, Dec. 31, 1998); Article 11(1) and (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 15970, Dec. 198; see current Article 96(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act); Article 7(1) and (3) of the former Restriction of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 15584, Dec. 28, 1997)
[1] Supreme Court Decision 92Nu3472 delivered on January 15, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 748), Supreme Court Decision 2000Du3115 delivered on January 22, 2002 (Gong2002Sang, 596), Supreme Court Decision 2001Du3006 delivered on May 16, 2003 (Gong2003Ha, 1357)
Tae Young-gu Co., Ltd. (Attorneys Cho Young-gu et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Head of Ulsan District Office
Busan High Court Decision 2002Nu2895 delivered on December 13, 2002
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1
This is because Article 7 (1) of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 5584 of Dec. 28, 1998; hereinafter referred to as the "former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act") which provides for special tax reduction and exemption for small and medium manufacturing businesses shall be naturally reduced and exempted if the requirements for reduction and exemption of income tax or corporate tax are met, and shall not be reduced and exempted. Article 7 (3) of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15976 of Dec. 31, 1998) and Article 7 (4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15976 of Dec. 31, 1998) provide for the reduction and exemption of corporate tax for a taxpayer to submit documents necessary for the determination of the tax base and amount of corporate tax, and Article 7 (1) of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 150932, Jan. 20, 200063).
In the same purport, the court below's decision that even if the plaintiff applied for reduction or exemption of corporate tax only for the logistics business among the manufacturing business and the logistics business that the plaintiff concurrently operates, since all the manufacturing business and the logistics business fall under the business subject to reduction or exemption under Article 7 (1) of the former Steering Act, the calculation of the reduced or exempted income should be made including not only the income generated from the logistics business but also the income generated from the manufacturing business (including the loss carried forward) shall be justified in light of the above legal principles, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as
2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the "income generated from the business concerned" under Article 7 (1) of the former Act means only the income generated from the main business activities of the business subject to reduction or exemption, and that the income does not fall under the natural statutory negligence income accrued from the temporary keeping of the income in the bank, or the special profit that is obtained from the transfer of the income generated from the transfer of the relevant business to another business, and that the interest paid by the corporation may be recognized as an individual loss if the actual purpose of use of the borrowed funds has been revealed, but if it does not so, it shall be calculated as a common loss in proportion to the sales of the business subject to reduction or exemption and other business (tax business). Thus,
Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the relevant statutes and the records, we affirm the above recognition and judgment of the court below as just, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the scope of reduced or exempted income, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff who is the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Ko Hyun-chul (Presiding Justice)