logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2018. 08. 30. 선고 2018두44739 판결
(심리불속행)과도한 컨설팅비용은 필요경비로 공제할 수 없으며, 비사업용토지에 해당하므로 장기보유특별공제 역시 배제함이 타당함[국승]
Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit

Gwangju High Court-2017-Nu-5613 (2018.03)

Case Number of the previous trial

Seoul High-2016-0086 ( November 17, 2016)

Title

The consulting expenses that are in progress cannot be deducted from the necessary expenses, and it is reasonable to exclude the special long-term holding deduction as the non-business land.

Summary

(C) The land of this case constitutes a non-business land that is not subject to special deduction for long-term holding, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

Related statutes

Article 104-3 of the Income Tax Act

Text

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

Reasons

Examining the lower judgment and the grounds of appeal, the grounds of appeal by appellant are not included in the grounds of appeal under each subparagraph of Article 4(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure for Appeal, or are deemed to fall under each subparagraph of paragraph (3). Therefore, the appeal is dismissed under Article 5 of the same Act. It is so decided as per

arrow