법인세등부과처분취소
All appeals are dismissed.
Costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
1. Case summary and key issue
A. A. A summary of the case (1) On May 1, 2008, the Plaintiff established F Co., Ltd. F (hereinafter “corporation established through division”) by physical division of chemical products manufacturing division and urban development division of the Incheon Factory from the existing other business division (hereinafter “instant division”), and completed the registration of division on May 6, 2008.
(2) In light of the fact that the instant division satisfies the requirements for taxation deferment under the law, the Plaintiff reported the corporate tax for the business year 2008, appropriated the amount of KRW 748.5 billion from the gains from the transfer of assets due to the division as the advanced depreciation reserve for stocks, and treated that the transfer of assets pursuant to the division does not constitute the supply of goods subject to taxation even under the Value-Added Tax Act.
(3) On the other hand, the Plaintiff performed a construction work to reclaim waste tin, which has been set up for a long time in the Incheon factory, in the reservoir in the Incheon factory and create it as an amusement park (hereinafter “closed stone disposal work”). In filing a corporate tax return for the business year 2008, the Plaintiff treated the construction cost as ordinary expenses and deducted the relevant input tax amount from the output tax amount of the value-added tax for January 2008.
The construction works to create eco-friendly housing units by improving the number of housing units in the P Park (hereinafter referred to as the "Housing Finance Corporation") was implemented, and each value-added tax amount was deducted from each output tax amount when filing the return of value-added tax for February 2, 2009 and January 2010.
(4) In view of the fact that the division of this case ought to be treated as capital expenditure without satisfying the requirements for taxation deferment under the law, the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the amount of corporate tax of KRW 300 billion (including additional tax) on August 22, 2013, issued a revised notice on November 11, 2013 to the Plaintiff for the business year 2008, and then additionally imposed an additional tax of KRW 640,400,000 on KRW 64 billion on November 11, 2013.