[행정처분취소,법인세부과처분취소][공1981.3.1.(651),13590]
(a) Exemption from the corporate tax and the additional corporate tax;
(b) Whether to exempt additional taxes due to nonperformance of payment report after the enforcement of the Value-Added Tax Act;
A. From January 1, 1975, Article 2(2) of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act effective, corporate tax exemption is not exempted even if corporate tax, which is the principal tax.
B. Under Article 3 of the Addenda of the Act on Temporary Measures for Tax Adjustment arising before July 1, 1977, the Value-Added Tax Act among penalty taxes not submitted for a corporation’s 1977 business year payment report, penalty taxes due to nonperformance of obligation to submit a payment report arising before July 1, 1977 should be imposed as it is in accordance with the previous example of the Corporate Tax Act. However, the penalty taxes arising from nonperformance of obligation to submit a payment report arising therefrom are exempted under
Article 47(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 2(2) of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act, Article 4 of the Act on Provisional Measures for Tax Adjustment following the Implementation of Value-Added Tax, Article 3 of the Addenda
Supreme Court Decision 74Nu56 Decided January 13, 1976
Orion Esch Rexroth (Korea) Law Firm Cambodia, Attorney Park Young-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant
The head of the Kimcheon-gu Office of Tax Administration shall conduct the litigation performer's spoke, Jinsu-sponding, spokeing, sporain
Daegu High Court Decision 199.9.18, 79Gu23 decided Sep. 18, 1979
(1) Of the part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiff, the corresponding portion of KRW 42,196,112 is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
(2) The remainder of the Plaintiff’s appeal and the Defendant’s appeal are dismissed.
(3) The costs of appeal on the dismissal of an appeal are assessed against each appellant.
(1) We examine the Plaintiff’s attorney’s grounds of appeal.
As to ground of appeal No. 1:
조세감면규제법 제2조 제2항 의 규정은 감면되는 조세중 법인세 등에는 가산세가 포함되지 아니한다 하고 괄호하여 동법 제4조 에서 규정하는 법인에 대하여는 가산세중 원천징수와 자료제출에 관한 의무불이행 가산세에 한하여서 만은 가산세가 면세되지 아니한다는 취지임이 그 규정 자체로 보아 명백한 바, 원고 법인이 위 법 제4조 에 규정하는 법인임을 시인케 하는 아무런 자료가 없는 본건에 있어서 원고 법인이 동법 제4조 소정의 법인임을 전제로 한 소론은 이유없다 할 것이고, 법인세가 면제되어 징수할 수 없는 겅우에는 가산세도 징수할 수 없다고 보아야 한다고 할지라도 가산세를 본세에 대한 납부의무의 유무에 불구하고 독립해서 징수하는 것이 그 본질상 허용될 수 없다는 것은 결코 아니므로 입법에 의해서 본세를 징수하지 않는 경우에 있어서도 법인세법 제41조 각 항 에 해당하는 금액을 세금명칭으로 독립해서 징수하는 것은 불가능한 것이 아니라고 할 것인 바, 국세기본법(1974.12.21 법률 제2697호) 제47조 제2항 에 의하면 가산세는 당해 세법이 정하는 국세의 세목으로 한다. 다만 당해 국세를 감면하는 경우에는 가산세는 그 감면하는 국세에 포함되지 않는 것으로 한다고 규정하고, 1974.2.19 법률 제2678호에 의하여 개정되고 1975.1.1부터 시행된 조세감면규제법 제2조 제2항 에 의하면 이법 및 조약과 제1항 각 호 에 게기하는 법률에 의하여 감면되는 조세 중 소득세, 법인세와 영업세에는 이 법에 특별한 규정이 없는 한 가산세, 양도소득세와 특별부가세가 포함되지 않는 것으로 한다고 규정하고 있으므로 위 조세감면규제법 제2조 제2항 이 시행된 1975.1.1부터는 본세인 법인세가 면제된다고 하더라도 법인세 가산세는 면제되지 아니한 것으로 해석된다 할 것이고,( 대법원 1976.1.13 선고 74누56 판결 참조) 또한 법인세가 면제된다고 하더라도 그것만으로서는 과세표준금액 신고의무 자체가 면제된다고는 할 수 없다 할 것이므로 원고 법인에게 위 신고의무가 있는 이상 과세표준 금액을 과소신고 하였다면 원고는 과소신고 가산세를 납부할 의무가 있다 하겠으니 이와 같은 취지에서 한 원심의 판단은 정당하다 할 것이므로 원고 법인에게는 과세표준금액 신고의무가 없음을 전제로 한 소론도 이유없음에 귀착되어 논지 제1점은 모두 이유없다 할 것이다.
As to ground of appeal No. 2
Article 1 of the Addenda of the Value-Added Tax Act (Act No. 2932, Dec. 22, 1976) provides that Article 66 of the Corporate Tax Act shall be deleted. Since Article 1 of the Addenda of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that a corporation shall submit a report on its payment from July 1, 1977, which was enforced under Article 1 of the Addenda of the said Act, shall not be exempted from the obligation to submit a report on temporary measures. Since Article 3 of the Addenda of the said Act provides that a corporation shall submit a report on temporary measures for its failure to submit a report on temporary measures for the year after the enforcement of the said Act shall not be subject to the previous provisions of the Income Tax Act and the Corporate Tax Act, and the court below shall have to submit a report on temporary measures for its failure to submit a report on temporary measures after July 1, 1977, which was implemented under the previous provisions of the said Act, and the amount of additional taxes shall be subject to 7 percent of the amount of additional taxes to be paid from the date of the Plaintiff 17.
(2) We examine the grounds of appeal by the Defendant Litigation Performers.
Since additional tax under the Corporate Tax Act is a kind of corporate tax, corporate tax cannot be imposed independently for a corporation that is exempt from corporate tax, unless there is a special provision. However, for five years from January 1, 1974 to December 31, 1978 under the Foreign Capital Inducement Act, it is clear that the Plaintiff is a corporation that is exempted from corporate tax, so it cannot be imposed independently, so Article 47 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 2 of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act, which can be a special provision that can be imposed independently, cannot only impose corporate tax on the Plaintiff before May 1, 1975, prior to the enactment of Article 2 of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act. Accordingly, the judgment below in the same purport is just, and it cannot be said that there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles of additional tax such as the theory of lawsuit, and therefore there is no argument to be contrary
Therefore, among the part of the judgment below against the plaintiff among the part of the judgment below against the plaintiff, the corresponding part of the additional tax amount to be submitted to the plaintiff in 1977, 42,196,112 shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to Seoul High Court which is the court below. The remaining part of the appeal by the plaintiff and the defendant's appeal shall be dismissed. The costs of the appeal as to the dismissal of appeal shall be assessed against the plaintiff's appellant's assent
Justices Kim Tae-tae (Presiding Justice)