[법인세부과처분취소][공2003.1.15.(170),248]
[1] Requirements for applying the principle of good faith to tax authorities' acts
[2] The case holding that there is a cause attributable to the trust of the tax authority's statement of opinion
[1] In general, in order to apply the principle of trust and good faith to a tax authority’s act in a tax law relationship, the tax authority must issue a public opinion list to taxpayers, and the taxpayer should not be responsible for the taxpayer’s reliance on the tax authority’s reliance on the tax authority’s reliance on the tax authority’s reliance on the tax authority’s reliance on the tax authority’s reliance on the tax authority’s reliance on the tax authority’s reliance on the tax authority’s reliance on the tax opinion list
[2] The case holding that it is difficult to view that the Ministry of Finance and Economy had expressed a public opinion that it would promulgate and enforce the above Enforcement Rule by not later than the end of June, on the sole basis of the fact that the Ministry of Government Legislation revised the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act through the news report materials and stated "to promulgate and implement it at the end of June," and there is a reason for not confirming whether the above Enforcement Rule is actually promulgated and implemented before the transfer of real estate
[1] Article 15 of the Framework Act on National Taxes / [2] Article 15 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 18-3 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5581 of Dec. 28, 1998), Article 43-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15970 of Dec. 31, 1998), Article 18 (5) 21 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy of May 24, 1999), Article 40-3 (1) of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 5584 of Dec. 28, 1998)
[1] Supreme Court Decision 94Nu12159 delivered on June 16, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 2640), Supreme Court Decision 95Nu10181 delivered on November 14, 1995 (Gong1996Sang, 98), Supreme Court Decision 96Nu17486 delivered on July 11, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 2546), Supreme Court Decision 98Du2713 delivered on August 18, 200 (Gong200Ha, 2022), Supreme Court Decision 9Du10131 delivered on November 27, 2001 (Gong202Sang, 194)
Korean Field Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Pacific, Attorneys Gyeong Tae-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Daejeon director of the tax office
Daejeon High Court Decision 2001Nu685 delivered on October 12, 2001
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon High Court.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
1. In general, in order to apply the principle of trust and good faith to a tax authority’s act in a tax law relationship, the tax authority must issue a public opinion list that is the subject of trust to taxpayers, and the taxpayer has no reason attributable to the taxpayer when the taxpayer trusted that the tax authority’s opinion list is justifiable, and there is no reason attributable to the taxpayer, and the taxpayer must act in trust and what is, and the tax authority should make a disposition contrary to the opinion list, thereby infringing the taxpayer’s interest (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Du2713, Aug. 18, 200; 9Du10131, Nov. 27, 2001).
2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its holding, and announced that the Ministry of Finance and Economy (hereinafter referred to as the "Financial Economic Board of the original judgment") excluded the real estate from non-business real estate before December 31, 1999 for restructuring through mass media, such as newspapers on June 9, 198, if the corporation sells the real estate before the end of June 31, 199, the amendment of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act was made to exclude the real estate from non-business real estate. It does not mean that the administrative department in charge of the Financial Economic Policy has expressed the amendment direction of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act and its implementation schedule, but it does not mean that the tax authority has issued a public opinion that is the object of trust to taxpayers. In light of the subject, content, and background of the above announcement, the court below determined that the Plaintiff, a taxpayer, was not erroneous in the misapprehension of the opinion of the Ministry of Finance and Economy and Economy, and that it was unlawful before the amendment of the Corporate Tax Act.
3. However, in cases where a corporation transfers real estate for business purposes to improve its financial structure, it shall satisfy all the necessary conditions in order to apply the principle of trust and good faith to the taxation of this case by deeming the land as non-business real estate, and even according to the court below's approval, the Ministry of Finance and Economy revised the Enforcement Rule of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 41 of Aug. 22, 1998, and amended by Ordinance No. 86 of May 24, 1999; hereinafter "Enforcement Rule") before the amendment as of Aug. 22, 1998 and enforced, it shall be difficult to view that the land was not subject to the duty of trust and enforcement of the Ministry of Government Legislation, and thus, it shall not be deemed that it was not subject to the duty of trust and enforcement of the Enforcement Rule of the Ministry of Government Legislation, and it shall not be deemed that the land was not subject to the duty of trust and enforcement before the end of June 24, 1999.
Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the principle of trust and good faith in tax legal relations, which affected the conclusion of the judgment that the tax disposition in this case was unlawful against the principle of trust and good faith.
The grounds of appeal pointing this out are with merit.
4. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and 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 on the bench.
Justices Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)