[종합소득세등부과처분취소][공1989.5.15.(848),702]
The standards for calculating the value of invested site as necessary expenses for the business income of a cooperative that constructs a new house and sells in lots.
In case where the parties agree to jointly operate a new construction of tenement house and the housing site has been invested, it shall be calculated on the basis of the purchase price of raw materials and incidental expenses as provided in Article 60 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act in the calculation of the value of the housing site as necessary expenses for the business income of the joint project.
Article 60 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act
Supreme Court Decision 84Nu167 Decided July 24, 1984
Plaintiff
Daejeon director of the tax office
Seoul High Court Decision 87Gu725 delivered on June 20, 1988
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
Article 31 (3) of the Income Tax Act and Article 60 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act stipulate that the purchase of raw materials for goods or products sold as one of the necessary expenses corresponding to the total amount of income of real estate and business income of each year shall be significant and incidental expenses. If a party agrees to jointly operate a new apartment house and a house for sale in lots, if the land has been invested, it shall be calculated based on the purchase price of raw materials and the value at the time of investment in the said joint project corresponding to the purchase price of the business income of the joint project and incidental expenses (Supreme Court Decision 85Nu167 delivered on June 25, 1985).
The court below is just in holding that the defendant's calculation of necessary expenses based on the standard market price at the time of investment in the land of this case in the new construction of a row house and the joint business for sale in lots is unlawful, despite the fact that the appraised value of the land of this case was 204,80,000, and there is no error of law such as the theory of lawsuit
The issue is groundless.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Park Yong-dong (Presiding Justice)