약정에 의한 이자지급일이 없으므로 실제 지급받은 날을 수입시기로 보아야 함[국승]
Board of Audit and Inspection (2012.04.19)
Since there is no payment date under the agreement, the date of actual payment shall be deemed the receipt date.
The original disposition that was imposed on the date of receipt of interest on the ground that there was no stipulation that the date of payment can be specified on the loan certificate, and that the date of payment was set at the end, and there was no evidence to prove it, and that the agreement cannot be viewed as the "agreement" only with the arrival of the due date under the Civil Act.
2012Guhap31410 global income and revocation of such disposition
XX
The Director of the Pacific District Office
November 14, 2012
November 30, 2012
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The Defendant’s disposition of imposing global income tax of KRW 000 (including additional tax) on the Plaintiff on February 1, 2012 shall be revoked.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On April 13, 2006, the Plaintiff lent KRW 000 to thisA, and prepared and received a loan certificate from thisA with the following contents.
B. On February 25, 2010, the Plaintiff received a dividend of KRW 000,000 (hereinafter “the interest of this case”) totaling the principal and interest KRW 000,000 leased on the date of distribution from the Jung-gu District Court (2009, 2807, 2007).
C. On February 1, 2012, the Defendant imposed and notified the Plaintiff on the ground that “the interest of this case is a non-business profit and there is no agreement on the date of payment of interest, and the receipt date of interest is February 25, 2010,” pursuant to Article 16(1)11 of the Income Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 10175, Mar. 22, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the proviso to Article 45(9-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 22034, Feb. 18, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply) on the Plaintiff, “the receipt date of the interest of this case is February 25, 2010” (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).
D. On May 1, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a request for review on May 1, 201, and was dismissed by the Chairman of the Board of Audit and Inspection on June 19, 2012.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8 (including additional numbers), Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion
In lending to thisA, the Plaintiff set the maturity at the end of one year. Even if the Plaintiff did not set the time limit under the Civil Act, it constitutes a case where the said time limit has not been set, and as the time limit has arrived on July 29, 2009, the receipt date of the interest of this case shall be KRW 000,000 on August 2006 ( April - December 2006) and KRW 000 on December 2007 ( January - December 2007). Accordingly, the instant disposition based on the premise that the receipt date of the interest of this case is 2010.
(b) Related statutes;
It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.
C. Determination
(1) Article 45 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides for the receipt date of income by type of interest income, and subparagraph 9-2 of Article 45 provides that "the interest income which is a non-business profit shall be the date of payment by agreement, if any, and the date of payment by interest if there is no agreement on the date of payment of interest." Since income tax is a so-called "period taxation" imposing tax on the income for one year from January 1 to December 31, 31 of each year, it is necessary to specify the receipt date of the interest income in order to include the interest income generated from non-business profit in the global income tax base. In light of such fact, in order to regard the receipt date of the interest income as "the date of payment by interest under an agreement" as "the date of payment by interest under Article 45 subparagraph 9-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act", the payment date of such interest shall be specified in the agreement to the extent that it can be known that it reverts at least in a certain taxable period (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Du68755, Mar. 12,
(2) In the case of this case, it is reasonable to view that the interest payment date of this case was an agreement under Article 45 subparagraph 9-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act as the date of payment by agreement, and it cannot be seen as the "agreement" under the Civil Act only with the arrival of the payment period under the Civil Act, and the interpretation of tax laws should be made in accordance with the provisions of the law, and it is not allowed to expand or analogical interpretation without any justifiable reason (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du5521, Jul. 26, 2002).
(3) Therefore, the instant disposition added by deeming the receipt time of the interest of this case as 2010 is lawful, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.