2014west 2998 (2015.03.02)

Since asset management companies can be seen as beneficial owners, it is reasonable to apply the 5% limited tax rate requirement under the tax treaty.

It is unlawful to deem that it is not subject to the 5% limited tax rate requirement under the tax treaty on the premise that the asset management company is deemed to be a beneficial owner, but is not a beneficial owner.

Article 98 of the Corporate Tax Act (Special Cases concerning Withholding or Collection for Foreign Corporations)

2015Guhap64473 Revocation of the corporate tax collection disposition

OOO Co., Ltd.

O Head of tax office

National Flag

March 11, 2016

April 29, 2016

1. The Defendant’s disposition of collecting corporate tax of KRW 1,885,834,09 (including additional tax) that was imposed on the Plaintiff on February 12, 2014 shall be revoked entirely.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Status of the parties

The Plaintiff was delegated by △△△△△△, a real estate investment company (hereinafter “△△△△△△△△”) that was established by 00 Dong 00, Seoul, 000 for the purpose of acquiring, operating, and disposing of the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant real estate”) for the payment of dividends and liquidation dividends by proxy and corporate tax withholding liability.

△△△△△ 유한회사의 지분 100%를 XXXX가 보유하고 있는데, XXXX는 1997년경 독일연방공화국(이하 '독일'이라 한다) 투자법상 투자펀드를 운영할 목적으로 설립된 유한회사이다.

한편 AAA 펀드는 XXXX가 운용하는 투자펀드이다.

(b) Payment of dividend and taxation;

△△△△△ 유한회사는 2011. 1. 21.부터 2011. 8. 8.까지 사이에 배당소득 합계18,858,341,144원(이하 '이 사건 배당소득'이라 한다)을 「대한민국과 독일연방공화국간의 소득과 자본에 대한 조세의 이중과세회피와 탈세방지를 위한 협약」(이하 '한・독 조세조약'이라 한다) 제10조 제2항 (가)목의 제한세율 5%를 적용하여 원천징수한 법인세857,197,320원 및 특별징수한 지방소득세 85,719,720원을 더한 942,917,040원을 제외한 나머지 배당소득 17,915,424,104원을 XXXX에 지급하였다.

However, on February 12, 2014, the Defendant: (a) deemed that AAA Fund is a beneficial owner; (b) deemed that it did not meet the requirements for direct possession under the Korea- Germany Tax Treaty; and (c) excluded the application of the 5% limited tax rate under Article 10(2)(a) of the Korea- Germany Tax Treaty; and (d) applied the 15% limited tax rate under Article 10(2)(b) to the Plaintiff on February 12, 2014 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

(a) Relevant statutes and articles of association;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

B. Determination

1) Interpretation of the relevant statutes

A foreign corporation is liable to pay corporate tax only if there is a domestic source income (Article 2(1)2 of the Corporate Tax Act), and a person who pays a certain amount of domestic source income to a foreign corporation is liable to withhold the relevant corporate tax (Articles 2(5) and 98(1) of the Corporate Tax Act).

Meanwhile, according to the Korea- Germany Tax Treaty, dividends paid by a corporation which is a resident of a Contracting State to a resident of the other Contracting State may be taxed in that other Contracting State (Article 10(1) of the Korea- Germany Tax Treaty). With respect to such dividends, a corporation paying such dividends may also be taxed in accordance with the laws of that Contracting State, which is a resident (Article 10(2) of the Korea- Germany Tax Treaty). However, if the beneficial owner, who is a resident of the other Contracting State, directly holds at least 25% of the capital of the corporation paying the dividends, it shall not be taxed in excess of 5% of the total amount of the dividends (Article 2(a)) and in all other cases, it shall not be taxed in excess of 1

In order to apply the limited tax rate of 5% under Article 10(2)(a) of the Korea- Germany Tax Treaty, the beneficial owner shall meet the specific equity requirements, and there is no definition provision in the Korea- Germany Tax Treaty, domestic law, etc. regarding the meaning of the beneficial owner: Provided, That the concept of the beneficial owner is explained in the main text of the "Tax Treaty on Income and Capital" prescribed by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (hereinafter referred to as the " OECD") and the "Tax Treaty" model on Income and Capital, and the concept of the beneficial owner is explained. The title of the OECD Model Treaty is not generally accepted in international law, but is also an interpretation standard for the international recognition of authority regarding the tax treaty concluded between OECD member countries, and since Korea- Germany also concluded the OECD Model Treaty, it is also possible to refer to the concept of the beneficial owner in interpreting the concept of the Korea- Germany Tax Treaty.

First of all, the OECD's report on "The Use of the Convention and the Convention on Taxation" adopted on November 27, 1987 as amended by the OECD was proposed to be used in order to prevent abuse of tax treaties, not to be a beneficial owner if the OECD only has a narrow authority as a mere mandatory or manager, but to use the concept of the beneficial owner in order to prevent abuse of tax treaties. The OECD Model Treaty note amended in 2003 reflected the above report's position in Article 10 subparagraph 12, Article 11 subparagraph 8, and Article 12 subparagraph 4, and included the concept of "the beneficial owner" in Article 10 in Section 12.1 of the Convention as well as the concept of "the owner" in Section 12.1 of the Convention on the Prevention of Double Taxation, including avoidance of Tax Evasion and Evasion of Taxes, and only within the context and purpose of the Convention on the Prevention of Tax Evasion, so that a person who has no further authority to prevent any abuse of the concept of the beneficial owner in addition to the scope of the beneficial owner.

Meanwhile, the principle of substantial taxation under Article 14(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 11845, May 28, 2013) applies, even though it is interpreted and applied to a tax treaty having the same effect as that of the Act, barring any special provision excluding it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du11948, Apr. 26, 2012).

Considering that the concept of beneficial owner, in particular, among the contents of the OECD Model Agreement note on the beneficial owner as seen above, was introduced to prevent tax avoidance and tax evasion, and the principle of substantial taxation under the Framework Act on National Taxes is also applied to the interpretation of the tax treaty, the actual subject of income is the taxpayer and the taxpayer is ultimately the beneficial owner under the tax treaty. Therefore, the beneficial owner under Article 10(2) Item (a) of the Korea-U.S. Tax Treaty refers to a corporation, which is a resident who is ultimately the subject of income tax, and is the subject of comprehensive tax liability.

2) A beneficial owner of the instant dividend income

갑 제1 내지 16호증, 을 제1호증의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사실 및 사정을 고려하면, 이 사건 배당소득에 대한 수익적 소유자는 XXXX이다.

"① XXXX의 주요 기관은 경영진(the management), 감독위원회(the Supervisory Board), 주주총회(the Shareholders' Meeting)로 구성되는데, 경영진이 감독위원회의 승인을 얻어 펀드를 설립・운용하고, 이러한 XXXX의 기관 이외에 AAA 펀드는 별도의 의사결정기구나 업무집행기구를 갖추고 있지 아니하다.",② 독일투자법에 따르면, 펀드에 속하는 재산은 자산운용사의 소유 또는 투자자 공동 소유로 하고, 반드시 자산운용사의 재산과 구분되어야 하므로(제30조 제1항), AAA 펀드가 아닌 자산운용사인 XXXX가 △△△△△ 유한회사 주식을 보유하고, 투자자들이 예치한 자금을 XXXX의 고유 자산과 구별하여 펀드의 형태로 보유하고 있다.

또 독일투자법은 자산운용사가 펀드에 귀속하는 권리에 근거하거나 펀드와 관련된 법률적 거래를 통하여 취득한 어떠한 것도 펀드에 귀속되도록 하고 있어(제30조 제2항), XXXX는 △△△△△ 유한회사로부터 받은 배당소득을 수익으로 인식하지 아니하고, AAA 펀드가 그 배당소득을 수익에 포함시켜 세금을 신고하였다.

③ 자산운용사인 XXXX는 독일투자법 및 펀드 규정에 따라 본인 명의로 AAA 펀드에 귀속되는 재산을 처분하고, AAA 펀드에 속하는 권리를 행사할 권리를 가진다(독일투자법 제31조 제1항). XXXX는 투자자들이 예치한 자금을 통해 자산 대상을 취득할 수 있고, 추후 해당 자산을 매각하고, 그 매각대금을 다른 곳에 투자할 수 있다. 나아가 자산운용으로부터 발생하는 기타 법률 행위를 할 수 있는 권한을 가진다(일반 약관).

④ 이와 같은 XXXX와 AAA 펀드의 기관 구성, 자산 운용 방법, 독일투자법 및 일반약관의 규정 등에 비추어 볼 때, XXXX는 AAA 펀드의 자금 또는 그 자금으로 매입한 자산에 대하여 매각 등 기타 법률 행위 등을 할 수 있는 권한을 가진다. AAA 펀드가 주식을 보유할 수 없어 XXXX가 △△△△△ 유한회사의 주식을 보유하고, 주주로서의 지위를 가지고, 그 지위에서 배당을 받았다. 비록 독일투자법 규정 때문에 XXXX는 그 배당소득을 자신의 고유 자산과 구별하여 AAA 펀드의 자산으로 귀속시켜야 하지만, 여전히 배당소득을 포함한 AAA 펀드의 자산에 대한 처분 권한을 가진다.

따라서 이 사건 배당소득이 AAA 펀드의 재산이 되었다는 사정만으로 XXXX가 이 사건 배당소득의 수익적 소유자가 아니라고 보기는 부족하다.

3) Sub-determination

이 사건 배당소득의 수익적 소유자인 XXXX가 독일 투자법상 투자펀드를 운영할 목적으로 설립된 유한회사로서 법인이고, 배당을 지급한 △△△△△ 유한회사의 주식 100%를 직접 보유하고 있음은 앞에서 본 바와 같다. 따라서 한・독 조세조약 제10조 제2항 (가)목에 따라 이 사건 배당소득에 대한 원천징수세율은 5%에 해당한다.

The instant disposition taken on the premise that the AA Fund is the beneficial owner of the instant dividend income, and that it did not meet the conditions of applying 5% tax rates under the Korea-Japan Tax Treaty is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted on the ground of the reasons.