Suwon District Court-2014-Guhap-4093 (2015.06.09)

Revocation of Disposition Imposing global income tax

It is necessary to calculate the amount of tax due to a person who falls under subparagraph 2 (a) of Article 64 (1) of the former Income Tax Act (the amount of tax calculated based on global income tax) more than the amount of tax under subparagraph 1 of the same paragraph

Article 64 of the former Income Tax Act, Article 122 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act

2015Nu49407 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing global income tax

The AA

BB Director of the Tax Office

Suwon District Court-2014-Guhap-4093 (2015.06.09)

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's judgment is as follows: (a) the court of first instance has dismissed the following matters among the judgments of the court of first instance; and (b) the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the court of first instance, and thus, (c) Article 8 (2) of

2. The phrase "2,679,440,00 won" in the 11st parallel act means "2,873,02,000 won" in the 3rd parallel act means "before the partial amendment by Act No. 12169 of Jan. 1, 2014" in the 11st parallel act means "before the amendment by Act No. 9897 of Dec. 31, 2009". "No. 15, 2013" in the 3rd parallel act means "no. 8, 2013" and "no. 10 parallel act" is deleted. "No. 4th parallel act prior to the amendment by Act No. 12251 of Jan. 14, 2014" in the 18th parallel act means "no. 5th parallel act prior to the amendment by Act No. 9897 of Dec. 15, 2010".

The relevant statutes of the judgment of the court of first instance are changed as shown in the attached Form of this judgment.

2. Additional determination

The plaintiff asserts that even if the above KRW 1,353,00,000 paid in the course of carrying out a resort development project did not constitute capital expenditure, the ordinary expenses generally accepted under Article 27 (1) of the former Income Tax Act constituted necessary expenses to be deducted from business income.

First, this case is a case where the amount of tax under Article 64 (1) 1 of the former Income Tax Act (the amount of tax calculated by applying the transfer income tax rate to the profit margin of each land of this case) exceeds the amount of tax under Article 64 (1) 1 of the former Income Tax Act (the amount of global income tax calculated by global income

However, Article 122(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24356, Feb. 15, 2013) provides that “the gains from trading housing, etc. pursuant to Article 64(1) of the Act shall be the amount calculated by subtracting the following amount from the sales value of the relevant housing or land: 1. The necessary expenses for transferred assets calculated pursuant to Article 163(1) through (5) of the Act shall be “the basic deduction amount of capital gains pursuant to Article 103 of the Act.” As such, in calculating the amount of tax pursuant to Article 64(1)2(a) of the former Income Tax Act, the calculation of the amount of tax pursuant to Article 64(1)2(a) of the former Income Tax Act is limited to the necessary expenses, such as the calculation of necessary expenses, and if not, it cannot be deducted even if it falls under the ordinary expenses generally accepted pursuant to Article 27(1) of the former Income Tax Act.

Therefore, we cannot accept the plaintiff's above argument.

3. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.