The early 2012 Gwangju 3945

The employer bears part of the lease deposit, and the employee and the jointly leased house do not constitute the leased house excluded from the earned income.

Since it is deemed difficult for the applicant corporation to regard the key leased house as a company house which directly leased or provided it free of charge, the disposition agency deemed that the key leased house is not a company house and thus there was no error of refusing to request for the refund of earned income tax

2013Guhap10052 Action to revoke the revocation of a claim for dismissal of wage and salary income tax

AAAAA

Head of the North Mine District Tax Office

June 27, 2013

August 22, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff shall bear the litigation costs.

The defendant's refusal of correction of wage and salary income tax on June 8, 2012 against the plaintiff, on April 10, 2012 of the plaintiff Honam District Headquarters 2009, on 009, on 010, on 010, on 2000, on 000, on 2009, on 2009, on 2009, on 2010, on 2012 of the plaintiff, on 2010, on 00, on 2010.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, a public corporation established for the purpose of building and managing a road, provides a lessee's housing by directly entering into a lease agreement (hereinafter referred to as a "self-lease housing") by the Plaintiff, in the event that the housing provided by the lower method is within the scope of support under the above criteria, and the lease deposit is within the scope of support under the above criteria, the Plaintiff directly enters into a lease agreement (hereinafter referred to as a "self-lease housing"), and the remainder of the housing provided by the employees, respectively, to enter into a lease agreement jointly with the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as a "joint lease housing"). The specific contents of the above two lease housing are as follows.

Classification

Family Dong-Jin Park

Housing rent (influoral)

Housing Lease Deposit

Support

Concept

Support in the case of leasing a house within the limit of regional support by the company

support in the case of leasing a house exceeding the limit of regional support by the company

[Spot Aid]

[Spot Support + Partial Liability of Employees]

Support

Conditions

Lessee: Company

(Lease of Company Name)

Rental: Company + Employees

(Lease of Common Names)

Support

Qualification

〇 1년 이상 근속한 직원으로서,

- Persons without any family living together in the service area;

- They will be married for not more than 3 months from the date of application

(Submission of Resident Registration and Family Relationship Certificate, which is Moveed after Retirement)

- Assistance only to one parent, if any;

Support

Exclusion

〇 채권보전이 불가한 주택

〇 국민주택규모 초과주택, 단, 3대가 함께 동거시 또는 3자녀 이상을 부양하는 경우 전용면적 126㎡까지 지원 가능(주민등록등본상 1개월 이상 등재)

〇 급여채권 압류자, 신용회복지원(개인워크아웃, 개인회생)을 받는 직원 등

Support

Ceiling Amount

(000 won)

1st class place

2nd class area

3rd class area

9,000

7,500

5,000

Recognized Taxation

Non-Taxation

Recognition of Total Amount of Support

Repayment

Method

〇 입주자 변경 또는 전액 일시상환(주택구입시 구입자금으로 전환 가능)

- Retirement: Not more than one month of the date of payment of retirement allowance / Housing purchase, transfer, temporary retirement, etc.

- Early Retirement: The date of retirement / Unfair flood damage, etc. immediately after the occurrence of the relevant event;

B. The Plaintiff’s provision of the sole lessor’s housing is excluded from those subject to the avoidance of wrongful calculation under the Corporate Tax Act.

In addition, the Plaintiff did not pay corporate tax or labor income tax because it constitutes a company house that is excluded from the scope of employment income under the Income Tax Act, and the amount borne by the Plaintiff as to the re-public service of the co-lease shall be deemed as a temporary payment on business, and the recognized interest shall be included in the calculation of the income, and the paid interest shall be deemed as a non-deductible income, and the employee shall be deemed as earned income - the employee shall withhold the employment income tax, and reported and paid it.

C. After the Supreme Court Decision (Supreme Court Decision 2004Du7993 Decided May 11, 2006; hereinafter referred to as the "Supreme Court Decision in this case") was rendered on December 30, 201, where the provision of a company house subsidy can be deemed as identical to the provision of a company house in substance, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to request a correction of the corporate tax for the provision of a common rental house on December 30, 201, and on the ground that the purpose of the above decision is to apply to wage and salary income tax, and the offer of a common rental house should be deemed as a company house excluded within the scope of wage and salary income. Accordingly, on April 10, 2012, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to refund the wage and salary income tax paid at the headquarters in 209, OOOO for 200, OOOOOOO for 200, and OOOO for 2010 portion of the wage and salary income tax paid by the Plaintiff branch.

D. On June 8, 2012, the Defendant rendered a disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s request for correction (hereinafter “instant disposition”), and the Plaintiff requested a trial to the Tax Tribunal on July 20, 2012, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s request on November 13, 2012.

[Based on Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 4, 5, and Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including paper numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply)

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant disposition that the Joint Lease Housing does not fall under the Lease Housing, which is excluded from the scope of wage and salary income, should be revoked for the following reasons.

1) The decision of the Supreme Court in this case is deemed to be uniform and uniform with the provision of a company house excluded from the object of the avoidance of wrongful calculation under the Corporate Tax Act, and the interpretation of the decision of the Supreme Court in this case is valid in interpreting the same provision as the Enforcement Decree and the Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act, which provide the same contents as the Enforcement Rule

2) Article 38 subparagraph 6 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23987, Jul. 24, 2012; hereinafter referred to as the "former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act") (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance No. 355, Jun. 28, 2013; hereinafter referred to as the "former Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act") refers to a house in which a user directly leases and provides an employee free of charge.

3) The imposition of the labor income tax on the amount of the subsidy would violate the principle of tax equality only in the case of a person who separates the employee who received the exclusive rental house from the employee who provided the common rental house.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Acts and subordinate statutes shall be as follows.

C. Determination

1) Article 38(1)6 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, and Article 38(1)6 and 1/7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provide that "the profits that an employee gains by receiving a house, and the profits that an employee gains by borrowing the fund required for the purchase and lease of a house at low interest or without compensation, shall be deemed as constituting earned income subject to the imposition of wage and salary income tax. However, the proviso of Article 38(1)6 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that "if an employee receives a fixed house with Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance, the employee shall be excluded from the scope of wage and salary income." Article 15-2(1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act provides that "one of the houses excluded from the scope of wage and salary income, which an employer directly leases to an employee, provides a leased house without compensation, and Article 38(2) of the same Act provides that if an employee, etc.

2) In other words, the following circumstances that can be seen by considering the overall purport of the Plaintiff’s argument that it is difficult to find, i.e., the denial of unfair act and calculation of wage and salary income under Article 52 of the Corporate Tax Act is not based on a reasonable method by a person with a special relationship, and where a corporation abused or reduces the 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, it is deemed that the taxation authority denies it and has income objective and reasonable by the method prescribed in the Acts and subordinate statutes. It is deemed that it is only applicable to the case where it is deemed that the Plaintiff neglected economic rationality by calculating natural and unreasonable acts from the economic standpoint, and that it is not reasonable to interpret that the Plaintiff’s provision of housing was not applied to the Plaintiff’s house rent without any special reason to the extent that it is not applied to the Plaintiff’s house rent, and that it is not applied to the Plaintiff’s house rent under Article 52 of the Corporate Tax Act to the extent that it is not applied to the Plaintiff’s house rent.

3) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

Conclusion

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