“Joint rental housing offered to employees does not constitute “housing directly leased to employees and provided to employees free of charge,” which is determined by the employer to be excluded from earned income;

The difference between the employee who received a private rental house and the employee who received a private rental house as a result of not excluding the profit from receiving a private rental house from the wage and salary income is different from the type and type of the profit that the employee receives, and the benefits that the employee receives by receiving a specific house is limited to the case where the employee receives a specific house under the relevant statutes, shall be excluded from the scope of

2013Guhap20210 Revocation of revocation of a disposition of revocation of a claim for correction of earned income tax

AAA Corporation

Head of the tax office

November 19, 2013

January 14, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

"The defendant's claim for correction against the plaintiff on December 1, 2012 is revoked on the part of the amount of wage and salary income tax of 2008 that was paid by the plaintiff on December 1, 201, by OOOO members of the Training Institute and OOO members of the AAA Construction Group (the " December 12, 2012 out of the plaintiff's claim for correction seems to be a clerical error of December 1, 2012)."

1. Details of the disposition;

"A. The plaintiff, a public corporation established for the purpose of building and managing a road, provides a tenant's housing in a way that the plaintiff directly enters into a lease contract (hereinafter referred to as a "self-lease housing") if the lease deposit exceeds the support limit in cases where the lease deposit is set up within the support limit in accordance with the above criteria to the employees who were accompanied by his/her dependents. The plaintiff provided a tenant's housing in a way that the remaining employees share the remainder for each contract for joint lease (hereinafter referred to as a "joint tenant's housing provided by the above method"), and the detailed contents of the above two methods are as follows.

B. The Plaintiff’s offer of a single lessee’s housing is excluded from the subject of the avoidance of wrongful calculation under the Corporate Tax Act, and did not pay corporate tax or labor income tax on the housing that was excluded from the scope of wage and salary income under the Income Tax Act. However, regarding the provision of a joint lessee’s housing, the Plaintiff deemed the amount borne by the Plaintiff as a provisional payment irrelevant to business affairs, and reported and paid corporate tax by deeming the interest to be recognized as having accrued from the business affairs, and by not deducting the interest paid from the deductible expenses, and the amount that the employee gains

C. After the Supreme Court Decision (Supreme Court Decision 2004Du7993 Decided May 11, 2006) rendered that the provision of a company house subsidy is not subject to the avoidance of unfair calculation under the Corporate Tax Act, where the provision of a company house subsidy is deemed to be identical to that of a company house in substance, the Plaintiff refunded the corporate tax already paid on the provision of a joint rental house on December 30, 201, and the above judgment should be interpreted to apply mutatis mutandis to the wage and salary income tax, and the provision of a joint rental house should also be deemed to be a company house excluded within the scope of the wage and salary income. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a claim for correction with the Defendant for each refund as to the wage and salary income tax paid by the Plaintiff Training Institute around March 2012, 208, and the labor income tax paid by the Plaintiff AAAAA construction team for the year 208 portion of the 2008 OOO.

D. On April 2012, the Defendant decided to refund each of the above requests for correction to the Plaintiff Training Institute and the Plaintiff AAAA Construction Group. On December 1, 2012 of the same year, the Joint Lease Company, following a review, deemed that it is not a company house that is excluded from the scope of wage and salary income, imposed a tax on the Plaintiff Training Institute to recover the wage and salary income tax for 2008 (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant disposition”), and on the same day, the Plaintiff Training Institute and the AAAA Construction Group filed a request for the revocation of the instant disposition with the Tax Tribunal on February 27, 2013, but all of the claims were dismissed on May 6 of the same year.

Facts that there is no dispute over recognition, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 4-1, 2, 5, Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

(1) In certain cases, the Supreme Court precedents regard the provision of a company subsidy as uniform with the provision of a company house excluded from the subject of the avoidance of wrongful calculation under the Corporate Tax Act. However, in interpreting the corresponding provisions of the Enforcement Decree and the Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act, which provide the same contents as the Enforcement Rule and the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act, the apartment rental house shall be deemed

(2) The imposition of the labor income tax on the amount of support is a discrimination without reasonable grounds and is in violation of the principle of tax equality.

(3) Therefore, the instant disposition that held that a joint lessee’s house does not constitute a company house excluded from the scope of wage and salary income should be revoked as it is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as stated in the "Annexed Acts and subordinate statutes", c.

(1) Article 52 of the Corporate Tax Act provides that "the rejection of unfair calculation under the provision of Article 52 of the Corporate Tax Act is a system that considers that a corporation unfairly evades or reduces tax burden by using the various forms of transactions listed in each subparagraph of Article 88 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act without reasonable means of business from a person with a special relationship." It applies only to cases where a person with a right to taxation authority denies or reduces tax burden, and it is deemed that there is an income objectively and reasonably reasonable by the method prescribed in the laws and regulations. In light of an economic person's position, it is only applicable to cases where it is deemed that a person with a right to taxation authority disregards economic rationality due to wrongful calculation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Nu8751, Jul. 26, 1996) and the scope of earned income under the Corporate Tax Act are different in terms of its legislative purpose and purpose, its imposition purpose, its target, method, etc., and so, it is not reasonable to interpret a tax reduction or exemption provision 20.

Article 38 (1) 6 and 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that if an employee gains rent from his/her own house by obtaining rent from his/her own house, he/she shall be deemed to be subject to imposition of wage and salary income, in principle, if the employee gains rent from his/her own house or rent without compensation, the employee is provided with a house prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance within the scope of his/her wage and salary income. Article 15-2 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act provides that if the employee gains rent from his/her own house without compensation, he/she shall not be deemed to have provided a house for rent within the scope of his/her own house or rent without compensation, it is difficult for the employer to directly provide a house to the employee who purchased rent from his/her own house or rent rent without compensation. In addition, if the employee provides a house for rent to the employee, such as a house, he/she shall be deemed to have provided a house for rent within the scope of his/her own house or rent without compensation.

(5) In the end, the common rental house offered by the Plaintiff to its employees does not constitute “house that is directly leased to and provided to the employees without compensation,” and thus, the Defendant’s disposition of this case is lawful, and the Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise is without merit.”

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.