When an attorney-at-law has accrued income from the retainer fee agreed as remuneration for the acceptance of the case.

According to Article 28 of the Income Tax Act and Article 57 (4) 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the receipt date of the total amount of business income from the provision of personal services for the period of receipt or receipt of the income in calculating the total amount of business income shall be the date determined by the agreement as the payment date of the service price under the provision of personal services. Thus, in case where an attorney-at-law accepted a case and agreed on the date of acceptance as the payment date, the

Article 28 of the Income Tax Act, Article 57 (4) 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act

Plaintiff

The director of the tax office.

Seoul High Court Decision 85Gu797 delivered on December 11, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal:

In full view of adopted evidence, the court below determined that the Plaintiff’s right to the above company’s real estate was not provisionally registered in the name of the Plaintiff on December 11, 1975, 2000 won after the commencement of liquidation affairs against the Non-Party 5 million won on or before December 5, 1977, and that two liquidation affairs and five litigation cases were performed on or before December 5, 1977 and agreed to be paid for the commencement of contract, but did not receive the commencement of contract due to the shortage of power of the above company. However, on or before December 28, 1977, the Plaintiff did not have any special right to the above company’s real estate upon the commencement of contract of 3,000 won on or after the expiration of contract of 19,000 won. The court below determined that the Plaintiff’s right to the above company’s real estate upon the commencement of contract of 17,000 won on or after the expiration of contract of 197,000 won.

According to Article 28 of the Income Tax Act and Article 57 (4) 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the receipt date of the total amount of business income from the provision of personal services in the calculation of the total amount of business income in relation to the period of receipt or receipt shall be the date determined by the agreement as the payment date of the price for the service in accordance with the agreement. In this case, the plaintiff, an attorney-at-law, entered into a contract with the retainer on the acceptance date of the case and entered

The lower court revoked the Defendant’s taxation disposition on the ground that the provisional registration established to secure the payment of the retainers became final and conclusive considerably high as of the time the provisional registration was made, but it was erroneous for the Defendant to recognize the instant income as business income belonging to the year 1983, which had completed the principal registration procedure in the provisional registration. Therefore, the conclusion that the Defendant revoked the Defendant’s taxation disposition unlawful is reasonable.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)