법인세부과처분취소
1. The Defendant’s imposition of corporate taxes in KRW 340,268,220 (including additional taxes) against the Plaintiff on March 24, 2015 is subject to the imposition of corporate taxes of KRW 340,268,220 (including additional taxes).
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff is a company that is established on July 21, 1998 and engaged in beeing and the manufacture and sale of its accessories, and the Schenna Co., Ltd. and Lt. (hereinafter “China company”) in China constitutes a foreign related party as defined in Article 2(1)9 of the former Adjustment of International Taxes Act (amended by Act No. 9914, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter “International Tax Adjustment Act”) in relation to the Plaintiff.
B. On August 30, 2006, the Plaintiff lent 27,000,000 US dollars to a Chinese company from August 30, 2006 to August 30, 2010; however, the first interest rate shall be 6.07%, and thereafter, after adjustment to the interest rate calculated by adding 0.5% to the Libor interest rate as of January 1 of each year, the interest shall be paid on December 31 of each year.
(hereinafter referred to as “market transaction”). (c)
The Plaintiff applied the interest rate of 3.0375% (i.e., Libor interest rate of 2.50375% 0.5%) according to the issue transaction in relation to interest income received from the Chinese company in 2009 to the Defendant, and reported and paid corporate tax of 897,744,600 won as interest income.
The Defendant, while adjusting the tax at the arm’s length price under Article 4 of the International Tax Adjustment Act, imposed corporate tax on the Plaintiff on March 24, 2015, on the ground that the Plaintiff lent funds at an interest rate lower than the arm’s length price, KRW 912,087,00 and KRW 27,85,088, a total of KRW 939,942,08, a total of KRW 939,948,08, a fixed amount of the income amount, and KRW 340,268,220 ( KRW 330,184,384, a total of KRW 284) on the Plaintiff.
(hereinafter “instant disposition”) e.
On June 22, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, and the Tax Tribunal dismissed the said appeal on December 31, 2015.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the arm’s length price is the arm’s length price to adjust the taxation based on the arm’s length price under the International Tax Adjustment Act.