정부로부터 출연금을 받은 경우 수입금액 귀속시기[국승]
Cho High Court Decision 2010Da1360 ( October 23, 2010)
Where the Government has received contributions, the time when revenue amounts accrue.
Where the government receives a subsidy for expenses incurred in developing technology as a contribution, the contribution shall be included in the income for the taxable year to which the date of receipt of the notice of grant of the contribution belongs in principle, or where the contribution is received in succession by different dates under the agreement without any separate notice of grant, the contribution shall be included in the income for the taxable
The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The plaintiff shall bear the litigation costs.
On April 12, 2010, the Defendant’s revocation of the disposition imposing global income tax for the year 2006 against the Plaintiff appears to be a clerical error in “the purport of the claim is to revoke the disposition imposing global income tax for the year 2006.” Meanwhile, the Plaintiff submitted an application for modification of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim stating the withdrawal of the part seeking revocation of the disposition imposing global income tax for the year 2010.206. On the other hand, the Plaintiff submitted an application for modification of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim stating the withdrawal of the part seeking revocation of the disposition imposing global income tax for the year 2010.206. The Defendant’s submission of the above application on December 16, 2010, which did not raise any objection for two weeks from the date of receipt
1. Circumstances of dispositions;
A. The Plaintiff is a person operating the business of manufacturing organic fertilizers with the trade name of Dol Fertilizer. The Plaintiff submitted to the Minister of Commerce, Industry and Energy a plan for the development of regional industry in which the cost of the business is KRW 20 million for the first year (2006) and the second year (2007) and KRW 80 million for the second year (2007) and was notified by the Minister of Commerce, Industry and Energy on October 24, 2006.
B. Accordingly, on October 30, 2006, the Plaintiff entered into a common agreement on regional industry technology development projects with the △△△ Governor and the Gyeongnam-do Branch. 200 million won around October 2006 and KRW 80 million around August 2007, respectively.
C. However, on November 14, 2006, the Plaintiff received the national subsidy of KRW 160 million from 14, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as “the national subsidy in this case”), the national subsidy of KRW 40 million from January 17, 2007, respectively, from ○ University on November 22, 2006, and paid KRW 70 million out of the national subsidy in this case to ○○ University on November 22, 2006 as entrusted research and development expenses.
D. Meanwhile, on May 31, 2007, the Plaintiff did not report the Plaintiff’s global income tax return to the Defendant, as the income amount, the instant national subsidy received from △△△△△, and the national subsidy of KRW 40 million from January 17, 2007.
E. On April 12, 2010, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the total amount of KRW 200 million from the above subsidies, and the amount of KRW 60,926,090 from the global income tax for the year 2006 calculated by adding up the amount of KRW 70 million from the commission research and development expenses paid to ○○ University to the Plaintiff as necessary expenses.
F. The Plaintiff filed an appeal on global income tax for the tax year 2006, which was corrected and notified to the Tax Tribunal on April 12, 2010, and the Tax Tribunal decided that the Plaintiff’s imposition of global income tax on June 23, 2010 on the ground that the Plaintiff’s subsidy of KRW 40 million paid on January 17, 2007 cannot be deemed to be the amount of income in 2006. The disposition of global income tax on the ground that the Plaintiff’s imposition of global income tax on the Plaintiff’s payment of KRW 40 million was excluded from the amount of income in January 17, 2007, which was received by the Plaintiff on January 17, 2007.
G. Accordingly, according to the decision of the Tax Tribunal on June 25, 2010, the Defendant rendered a decision to reduce the Plaintiff’s global income tax of KRW 41,070,450 (including additional and increased additional charges) for the year 2006 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff as the global income tax of KRW 41,070,450 for the year 2006 was reduced to KRW 41,070,450 for the Plaintiff according to the decision of the said Tax Tribunal.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without any dispute, Gap's 3, 5, Eul's 1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion
On November 14, 2006, the Plaintiff received the subsidies of this case, but carried forward the subsidies of this case that were not disbursed due to the lack of all of the subsidies in the pertinent year to 2007, which was the next year. Since January 1, 2007, the Restriction of Special Taxation Act enacted a newly enacted provision that the subsidies of this case should not be included in the gross income, and this case related to the subsidies of this case is subject to the above Act, and thus, the disposition of this case is unlawful.
(b) Related statutes;
It is as shown in the attached Form.
C. Determination
(1) According to Articles 24(1) and (3), 39(1), and 51(3)4 of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20618, Feb. 22, 2008; hereinafter the same shall apply), and Article 10-2(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20618, Dec. 30, 2006; hereinafter the same shall apply), the resident’s calculation of the total amount of income on each income shall be based on the total amount received or received in the pertinent year. The value of assets received free of charge in relation to the business shall be included in the total amount of income, and the year to which the total amount of income, etc. belongs shall be the year to which the date when the special tax treatment Act (amended by Act No. 8146, Dec. 30, 2006; hereinafter the same shall apply), where a national receives contributions for research and development purposes by December 31, 2009>
(ii)In full view of the purport of Article 32 (1) of the Income Tax Act, if the subsidy is paid at the scheduled time without a separate notice of delivery, such as the subsidy in this case, the date when the subsidy is actually paid shall be deemed to be the date when the total amount of income is determined, and the year to which the above time belongs shall be determined as the year to which it belongs, and if it is later on January 1, 2007, it shall be reasonable to interpret that the subsidy may not be reflected in the amount of income under certain conditions such as separate accounting of the subsidy.
(3) According to the above interpretation criteria, the following circumstances are acknowledged as follows: ① the time when the Plaintiff was selected as a new business operator in accordance with the regional industrial technology development project plan from the Minister of Commerce, Industry and Energy; ② the Plaintiff entered into an agreement on October 30, 2006 on common technology development projects with Do governor and Gyeongnam-do. According to such agreement, the Plaintiff was paid KRW 200 million around October 2006 from △△△, etc. around August 2007; ③ Even if the Plaintiff received the subsidy from △△△△, etc. from △△△△, etc., from △△△△, around August 2007 to 2006, the Plaintiff’s assertion that KRW 160,000,000,000,000, which was the national subsidy of this case, was entirely included in the previous 2006-1,000,0000,000,000,000 won.
(4)Therefore, the disposition of this case is unlawful.
3.In conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.