Examination Income 2012-0075 (21. 2012.09)

In the name of the claimant's spouse, only the establishment of a contract for cash loan and mortgage can not be regarded as the effective owner as the spouse of the claimant.

It is difficult to view that the claimant's spouse belongs to the claimant's spouse only on the ground that he/she received the interest from the source of the monetary loan for consumption and the claimant's spouse's account if he/she received the interest and used it as the expenses for his/her family life.

Article 16 of the Income Tax Act

2012Guhap43529 global income and revocation of such disposition

The AA

Head of Geumcheon Tax Office

July 26, 2013

October 4, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposing OOO on the Plaintiff on April 16, 2012 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff married with AB on June 2002, but was divorced on January 2005.

B. On May 31, 2004, between AB and U.S. P. S., the representative of S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S.S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S.S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.

C. In the course of the investigation into the instant temple, the director of the tax office of Yananananananan District Tax Office found the above cash loan certificate that was the creditor of B in the course of the investigation into the instant temple and notified the data for taxation of the suspicion of omitting interest income in Pyeongtaek Tax Office, which is the tax office at the domicile of YB. In the process of imposing income tax on Y, the head of Yanan District Tax Office accepted the claim of YB that the

D. On April 16, 2012, the Defendant imposed a global income tax OOO on the Plaintiff’s interest income accrued in 2004 from the instant loan (hereinafter “instant interest income”) (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. On July 12, 2012, the Plaintiff appealed to the National Tax Service, but the Commissioner of the National Tax Service dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for examination on September 21, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 9, 10, 11, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In full view of the fact that the loan loan contract for the loan of this case was led by AB, the plaintiff was almost not involved in the loan of this case, the interest was paid in the passbook in the name of AB, and only part of the loan of this case was appropriated for the interest of the loan of this case to EE life insurance company, and the remainder was used by AB, AB argued that the mortgage in the name of the principal established in the real estate of this case was his own in the course of the lawsuit with the plaintiff, AB requested AB to pay the interest to AB around September 2006, and AB demanded AB to pay the interest to AB around September 2006, while AB operated AB while AB was maintaining a marital relationship with the plaintiff and AB operated AB while the plaintiff did not have any economic life, and it is difficult to view ABB was merely lent to the plaintiff, even if the plaintiff was the actual creditor of the loan of this case, the subject to the interest income of this case was not B or was jointly reverted to the plaintiff and AB.

B. Relevant statutes

(1) The former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8144 of Dec. 30, 2006)

Article 16 (01 self-income) (1) Interest income shall be the following income generated during the relevant year:

12. Profits accruing from a non-business loan;

(2) The interest income amount shall be the gross income amount during the relevant year.

(3) Matters necessary for the scope of interest income under each subparagraph of paragraph (11) and interest income amount under paragraph (2) shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

C. Determination

(1) The term "interest income under the Income Tax Act, which is a kind of interest income under a non-business loan" refers to the interest, commission, etc. that a person who does not engage in a business of lending money receives as a result of a temporary and incidental loan of money (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du5931, Feb. 13, 2004). Therefore, interest income shall be deemed to belong to the creditor of a monetary loan agreement.

(2) The Plaintiff’s loan Nos. 2, 3, 5, 9, 11, and No. 3, 5, and 7 with respect to the instant case. The following circumstances were revealed. ① The loan was paid to the Plaintiff in the name of EE life insurance company, and the interest amount for EEB was paid to the Plaintiff at the time of the instant loan No. 204, 200, 000, 200, 200, 200, 000,000,000, 200,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,000,00.

(3) Therefore, since the actual creditor of the instant loan and the subject to whom the interest income of this case accrue shall be deemed both the Plaintiff and the actual creditor of the instant loan and the subject to whom the interest income of this case accrue (it shall be deemed to be an internal problem between the Plaintiff and AB even if most of the interest was consumed by AB in 2004). The instant disposition made on such premise is lawful, and the Plaintiff’

3. Conclusion

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