The early 2012luminous3483

A disposition of dividend income by a wrongful calculation panel under the Corporate Tax Act against high-priced investment in kind;

Where an individual entrepreneur is converted into a corporation by transfer or acquisition of business, the assets shall be the market value of the assets, calculated by calculating the net asset value at the book value of the UN loan, and the transfer of stocks shall be evaluated as the market value at the time of conversion and the disposition of dividend income shall be appropriate.

Article 52 (Dispudiation of Wrongful Calculation)

2012Guhap4248 Notice of Revocation of Disposition of Change in Income Amount

AAice Co., Ltd.

Head of the Tax Office

September 25, 2013

December 4, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the Plaintiff

Cheong-gu Office

On July 1, 2012, the defendant revoked the notification of change in the amount of income of the OOO in the year 2009 against the plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

"A. Pursuant to Article 1132(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 9921, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter "former Restriction of Special Taxation Act") and Article 29(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21545, Jun. 19, 2009; hereinafter referred to as the "former Restriction of Special Taxation Act"), UB has established the Plaintiff by converting the above AB to the method of business transfer and acquisition (the method of comprehensively transferring all rights and obligations concerning private businesses to a corporation)." (b) At the time of the conversion into the above corporation, the Plaintiff calculated the total amount of assets transferred to the Plaintiff by the UBB as OO, calculated the total amount of liabilities acquired by the Plaintiff as 160% of the total liabilities of OB as 30% of the total assets acquired by the Plaintiff, and calculated the total amount of liabilities acquired by the Plaintiff as 160% of the 20O's net assets.8

C. The Director of the Central Tax Office of China conducted a tax investigation on the Plaintiff, and then notified the Defendant of the result of the investigation on the foreign currency debt of the UBB 200 (hereinafter “foreign currency debt of this case”). The assessment value of the foreign currency debt of this case applying the exchange rate as of April 3, 2009, which is the conversion date of the corporation, is OOE (1 =OE). However, the Plaintiff assessed the amount of the net asset value at the rate of exchange applied at the time of borrowing the foreign currency debt of this case as OOE (1 =OE) under the assessment of the net asset value at the 200 OE under the assessment of the above amount of the net asset value at the time of the above 20OE’s transfer, and then, the Plaintiff received an excessive payment to BOE under the assessment of the amount of the income amount at the same time as the 20OE’s transfer value to the head of the competent tax office for the same business year (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2138, Dec. 13, 2019, 2010).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) According to the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, in case where an individual entrepreneur’s business is converted into a corporation by the method of transfer or acquisition of business, the net asset value shall be assessed as the market value in the case of assets. However, in the case of liabilities, it shall not be assessed as the market value, and according to the Corporate Tax Act, foreign currency assets and foreign currency liabilities held by a corporation other than a financial company, etc. shall be assessed as the base rate for transaction as of the date of occurrence as of the base rate for transaction or as of the end

2) Since the Corporate Tax Act and its Enforcement Decree do not stipulate the cases of underassessment of liabilities as a type of wrongful calculation, even if the Plaintiff underassessment of the foreign currency debt of this case and provided stocks to the relevant BB excessively, it does not constitute the subject of the avoidance of wrongful calculation.

3) Even if the Plaintiff, as the Defendant’s assertion, underassessment of the foreign currency debt of this case, provided excessive amount of the Plaintiff’s shares to the B, the net asset value at the time of conversion into the Plaintiff’s corporation would have decreased, and accordingly, the market value of the Plaintiff’s shares issued to the B would also be lower than that of the Plaintiff’s shares. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff was distributed to OO

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

Article 52 of the Corporate Tax Act provides that a corporation’s wrongful calculation denial under Article 52 of the Corporate Tax Act is a system that, without a reasonable method by a person having a special relationship, unfairly evades or reduces tax burden by abusing the various forms of transactions listed in each subparagraph of Article 88(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act without using a reasonable method, and is deemed to have income objective and reasonable by the person having a right to taxation, and is limited to cases where it is deemed that the person disregards economic rationality by denying or calculating the negative and unreasonable acts or calculations in light of the economic terms and conditions. Therefore, in a case where a corporation’s comprehensive acquisition of various assets is deemed to have been made, the determination of whether it constitutes an expensive acquisition by comparison with the market price of each individual asset with the overall transaction price and market price of the assets should be based on the comprehensive acquisition by transfer as a whole (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Du1035, Sept. 27, 2013).

(4) The Plaintiff’s provision on the tax base of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2060, Apr. 3, 2009; Presidential Decree No. 20655, Apr. 2, 2009; Presidential Decree No. 20655, Apr. 2, 2007; Presidential Decree No. 20655, Feb. 28, 2007; Presidential Decree No. 20065, Feb. 28, 2006; Presidential Decree No. 2000, Feb. 24, 2007; Presidential Decree No. 200677, Feb. 28, 2007; Presidential Decree No. 200677, Feb. 28, 2006; Presidential Decree No. 2000, Feb. 24, 2006).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.