[법인세등부과처분취소][공1984.7.15.(732),1131]
Scope of application of Article 94(2)7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (Presidential Decree No. 7865, Nov. 13, 1975)
Article 94(2)7 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (Presidential Decree No. 7865, Nov. 13, 1975) (the provision that the amount included in the calculation of earnings as confidential expenses not falling under the provisions of Article 44-2 of the Enforcement Decree shall be the bonus to the representative) is newly established on Nov. 13, 1975 and deleted on Dec. 31, 1980. The revised Ordinance (Presidential Decree No. 1019, Dec. 31, 1980) newly established Article 94-2 of the Act on the "Disposition of Income of the amount included in the calculation of earnings in the calculation of earnings when determining or revising the tax base of corporate tax" (Article 1019, Dec. 31, 1980) and newly established Article 94(2)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act as to the amount included in the calculation of earnings as confidential expenses, and Article 94-2 of the Addenda applies from the year of the first report after the enforcement of the Enforcement Decree.
Article 94-2(1)1, proviso, and subparagraph 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (Presidential Decree No. 1019, Dec. 31, 1980); Article 4 of the Addenda; Article 94(2)7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (Presidential Decree No. 7865, Nov. 13, 1975)
SPS Co.
Head of Seodaemun Tax Office
Seoul High Court Decision 82Gu867 delivered on August 31, 1983
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.
Article 94-2 (1) 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1980, Dec. 31, 1980; Presidential Decree No. 1950, Jan. 1, 1980; Presidential Decree No. 1950, Dec. 1, 1980; Presidential Decree No. 1990, Feb. 1, 1989; Presidential Decree No. 1996, Feb. 1, 2006; Presidential Decree No. 1990, Jan. 1, 2006; Presidential Decree No. 1990, Jan. 1, 2006; Presidential Decree No. 1996, Feb. 199; Presidential Decree No. 2010, Feb. 1, 2006; Presidential Decree No. 2010, Jan. 1, 2006).
In addition, the proviso of Article 94-2 (1) 3 (c) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act that excludes the amount included in gross income pursuant to Article 44-2 of the Enforcement Decree from other outflow from the company, among the amounts included in gross income pursuant to Article 18-2 of the Corporate Tax Act, is a provision that was not established at the time of establishment of the taxation requirement of this case, and is newly established on December 31, 1982, and thus, it cannot be the basis for the disposition of income that the Defendant recognized the excess amount of the confidential expense of the Plaintiff company
This paper argues that the defendant's disposition of changing income was legitimate on the ground that Article 94 (2) 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, Article 94-2 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, and the proviso of Article 94-2 (3) (c) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act should be applied to the disposition of this case, and that the judgment below erred by misapprehending the legal principles and incomplete deliberation.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, 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.
Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)