[법인세등부과처분취소][미간행]
[1] The purpose and standard of determining the provision of Article 20 of the former Corporate Tax Act as to a wrongful calculation father
[2] The case holding that where a resident did not receive interest even though the amount was converted into a long-term loan to a resident while capital reduction of a U.S. local corporation in which the resident invested 100%, it constitutes an object of tax adjustment at the arm's length price under Article 4 of the former Adjustment of International Taxes Act
[1] Article 20 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5581 of Dec. 28, 1998; see Article 52 of the current Corporate Tax Act); Article 46 (2) 7 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15970 of Dec. 31, 1998; see Article 88 (1) 6 of the current Corporate Tax Act); Article 20 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5581 of Dec. 28, 1998; see Article 52 of the current Corporate Tax Act); Article 46 (2) 7 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15970 of Dec. 31, 1998; see Article 88 (1) 6 of the current Corporate Tax Act) (amended by Act No. 679 of Dec. 7, 2002)
[1] Supreme Court Decision 95Nu8751 delivered on July 26, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 2711), Supreme Court Decision 95Nu18697 delivered on May 28, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 1920), Supreme Court Decision 97Nu1929 delivered on July 24, 1998 (Gong1998Ha, 2259), Supreme Court Decision 99Du10131 delivered on November 27, 2001 (Gong202Sang, 194), Supreme Court Decision 2001Du7268 delivered on September 4, 2002 (Gong202Ha, 2360), Supreme Court Decision 204Du19438 delivered on December 29, 204, Supreme Court Decision 2004Du20479 delivered on December 29, 2004).
Seoul High Court Decision 200Na14488 decided May 1, 200
Head of Seodaemun Tax Office
Seoul High Court Decision 2003Nu553 delivered on August 1, 2003
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
Article 20(2) of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5581, Dec. 28, 1998; hereinafter referred to as the "former Corporate Tax Act") provides that a corporation's rejection of unfair act and calculation under Article 20(1) of the former Corporate Tax Act shall be limited to cases where it is deemed that the corporation has avoided or reduced tax burden by abusing all the forms of transactions listed in subparagraphs of Article 46(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15970, Dec. 31, 1998; hereinafter referred to as the "former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act") without reasonable means of a person with a special relationship, and where it is deemed that the person with a taxation authority denies or reduced tax burden by abusing the forms of transactions listed in subparagraphs of Article 46(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 15970, Dec. 26, 197).
According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, since the plaintiff's investment of 10,00 U.S. dollars in loan capital or 100 U.S. dollars in the above 198's capital increase, the plaintiff's investment of 10,000 U.S. dollars in the above 7 U.S. dollars capital increase of 170,00 U.S. dollars and 170,000 U.S. dollars in the above 192's capital increase of 4 U.S. dollars in the 1992's capital increase of 192's capital increase of 192 U.S. dollars in the above 192's capital increase of 192's capital increase of 197 U.S. dollars in the above 193's capital increase of 19 U.S. dollars, the above 193's capital increase of 70,000 U.S. dollars was not reported.
In light of the above legal principles and records, the above fact-finding and determination by the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to reduction of capital, incomplete deliberation, violation of substance over form principle, denial of wrongful calculation, or misunderstanding of legal principles as to Article 4 of the Adjustment
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)