[종합소득세부과처분취소][공2000.1.15.(98),238]
The scope of the amount to be included in the necessary expenses for the pertinent year from among the expenses required for the acquisition of fixed business assets.
In light of Articles 31(1), 43, and 48 subparag. 6 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4803 of Dec. 22, 1994); Articles 60(1)7 and 11, 81, 84, 85, 86(1), 87(2), and 89 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14467 of Dec. 31, 1994); and Articles 60(1)7 and 11, 84, 85, 86(1), 87(2), and 89 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14803 of Dec. 22, 1994), the expenses incurred in acquiring fixed assets for business are included in the acquisition value of the fixed assets for the corresponding year, but only the depreciation costs within the scope of scope of depreciation through depreciation based on the acquisition value can be included in necessary expenses.
Articles 31(1) (see current Article 27(1)), 43 (see current Article 64(1)), 48 subparag. 6 (see current Article 33(1)6) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4803, Dec. 22, 1994); Article 60(1)7 and 11 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14467, Dec. 31, 1994; see current Article 5(1)7 and 14), 81 (see current Article 62(2)), 84 (see current Article 66), 85 (see current Article 62); Article 86(1) and 86(1)6 (see current Article 33(1)6 of the Income Tax Act); Article 60(1)7 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14867, Dec. 31, 1994);
Plaintiff
Head of the tax office;
Seoul High Court Decision 97Gu24940 delivered on October 20, 1998
The part of the lower judgment against the Defendant is reversed. This part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the defendant paid expenses of KRW 111,517,088 as stated in the attached Table 3 of the judgment in addition to the necessary expenses recognized by the defendant in the global income tax assessment of this case. The above expenses should be fully deducted in calculating the plaintiff's real estate income amount as necessary expenses, and therefore, the part of the taxation disposition of this case exceeding the global income tax amount calculated by deducting the above expenses additionally from the total income amount is unlawful.
However, in light of Articles 31(1), 43, and 48 subparag. 6 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4803, Dec. 22, 1994); Articles 60(1)7 and 11, 81, 84, 85, 86(1), 87(2), and 89 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14467, Dec. 31, 1994); and Articles 60(1)7 and 84, 85, 86(1), 87(2), and 89 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 14803, Dec. 22, 1994); even if the expenses incurred in acquiring fixed assets for business have been paid during the pertinent year, only the depreciation costs within the scope of scope of depreciation based on the acquisition value may be included in necessary expenses; and even if the repair expenses for business concerned may be included in necessary expenses.
However, according to each evidence adopted by the court below, most of the expenses listed in the attached Table 3 as stated in the judgment of the court below are expenses corresponding to the acquisition cost of fixed business assets or capital expenditure. Thus, the court below should have determined the scope of necessary expenses to be deducted from total revenue after deliberation of this point, but the court below, which recognized the whole of such expenses as necessary expenses, without taking such measures, did not err by misapprehending the legal principles concerning necessary expenses or by failing to exhaust all deliberations. The grounds for appeal pointing this out are with merit.
Therefore, the part of the lower judgment against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)