법인세등부과처분취소
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part concerning the imposition of corporate tax for the business year from 200 to 2004 is as follows.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. (1) Party status (1) The Plaintiff: (a) entered into a contract with a special purpose company (including a foreign corporation specialized in specialized securitization companies and securitization business under domestic laws; (b) Loneone Star Fund III US LP; (c) Loneoneoneoneone LP; (d) Lone Star Fund III BerudaP (hereinafter referred to as “ Lone Star Fund III”); (d) Loneoneone Star Fund III; and (e) Loneoneone Star Fund IV 4; hereinafter referred to as “Lone Star Fund IV”; (d) Lone Star Fund II, III, and IV (hereinafter referred to as “Lone Star Fund IV”); and (e) a special purpose company (including a foreign corporation specialized in specialized securitization companies and asset-backed business under domestic laws; and (e) a special purpose company or a limited-liability company (hereinafter referred to as “special purpose company or a limited-liability company”).
(2) Pursuant to the above asset management consignment agreement, the Plaintiff provided the non-party special purpose company with the services of managing, operating, and disposing of the securitization assets (hereinafter “asset management services”) and received the asset management fees therefor. In addition to asset management, the Plaintiff also received incidental services such as accounting and tax return services on behalf of the non-party special purpose company and received incidental service fees therefor.
(3) The Hudson KRC (hereinafter “HALC”) is a corporation that provides Ludson KRC with investigation and asset assessment and consulting services for Lone Star Fund, and is the parent company of the Plaintiff.
B. The Defendant’s imposition disposition (1) of corporate tax in 200 and 2001, deemed that the Plaintiff and the non-party special purpose company were in a special relationship under the Corporate Tax Act, applied the provision on the limit of entertainment expenses to related parties under the proviso of Article 25(1)2 of the Corporate Tax Act. The Defendant again calculated the limit of entertainment expenses by applying the provision on the limit of entertainment expenses to related parties under the proviso of Article 25(1)2 of the Corporate Tax Act. As indicated below, the excess amount was excluded from deductible expenses as indicated
The details of the Gu and the amount of non-deductible expenses.