Whether the mother law violates the mother law

Whether the negotiable regular deposit interest, among the interest income amount of finance and insurance business, violates the parent law as income subject to withholding.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

Whether the parent law under the proviso of Article 100-4 (1) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, which provides that interest on negotiable regular deposits shall be withheld among the interest income amount of finance and

In case where income is classified under the Income Tax Act, it shall be confirmed by the concept of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, in case where a domestic corporation's bonds or securities received in Korea or interest income is composed of business income not interest income under the Income Tax Act, the above income does not constitute interest income under Article 39 (1) of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4020 of Dec. 26, 198), and thus, it does not constitute income subject to withholding. However, the proviso of Article 100-4 (1) 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12565 of Dec. 31, 198) stipulates that income subject to withholding among the interest income of the finance and insurance companies that constitute business income under the Income Tax Act shall be withheld only from the interest income under the Income Tax Act, it shall not be effective, and it shall not be permitted to expand the statement of payment without the principle of no taxation without the law.

Article 39 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4020 of Dec. 26, 198), Article 100-4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12565 of Dec. 31, 1988), Article 142 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4281 of Dec. 31, 1990), Articles 17 and 20 of the same Act, Article 36 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act

Each disposition of KRW 19,972,920 and corporate tax of KRW 1,988 and corporate tax of KRW 1,987,570 imposed by the defendant against the plaintiff on July 6, 1989 shall be revoked. The litigation cost shall be borne by the defendant.

각 성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 제1호증의 1,2(각 납세고지서 겸 영수증서), 을 제1,2호증(각 법인세지급조서, 가산세결정결의서), 을 제3호증(지급조서미제출가산세결정 검토조서), 을 제4호증(연도별지급조서미제출 내역)의 각 기재에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 원고는 금융업을 영위하는 내국법인으로서, 역시 금융업을 영위하는 내국법인인 소외 신용보증기금, 수출입은행, ㅇㅇ개발투자, ㅇㅇ투자금융, ㅇㅇ동 새마을금고(이하, 소외 금융기관이라고 한다)에게 양도성 정기예금증서를 발행한 후, 그에 대한 이자로 1987사업년도에 신용보증기금에게 돈 53,939,718원, 수출입은행에게 돈 609,082,005원, ㅇㅇ개발투자, ㅇㅇ투자금융에게 각 돈 1,371,232원 합계 돈 665,764,187원을, 1988사업년도에 신용보증기금에게 돈 11,309,584원, 수출입은행에게도 돈 53,602,720원, ㅇㅇ동 새마을 금고에게 1,340,068원 합계 돈 66,252,372원을 각 지급하고, 이에 대하여 법인세법(1988.12.26. 법률 제4020호로 개정되기 전의 것)제63조 제1항의 규정에 의한 지급조서를 제출하지 아니한 사실, 이에 대하여 피고는 위 법인세법 제41조 제4항, 제63조 제1항 제2호의 규정을 적용하여 1989.7.6. 원고에 대하여 1987사업년도분 지급조서미제출가산세 돈 19,972,920원(665,764,187원×3/100)과 1988사업년도분 법인세 돈 1,987,570원(66,252,372원×3/100)을 각 부과 고지한 사실을 각 인정할 수 있고 달리 반증이 없다.

In regard to the Defendant’s assertion that the instant taxation disposition was lawful on the grounds of the above grounds for disposition and applicable provisions of law, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant taxation disposition was unlawful on the ground that the Plaintiff’s interest on the transferred time deposit received by the Plaintiff was not interest income under Article 63(1)2 of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 142(1)1 and 17(1) of the Income Tax Act, but business income under Article 20 of the Income Tax Act, and thus, the instant taxation disposition that recognized that the Plaintiff should submit the payment record to the Plaintiff was unlawful.

Therefore, Article 63 (1) of the Income Tax Act provides that a person who pays interest income falling under any of the following subparagraphs shall submit a payment record to the Government by the end of the month following the payment date under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. Article 142 (1) of the Income Tax Act provides that a person who pays income or revenue amount under the following subparagraphs to a resident or a nonresident in Korea shall withhold income tax pursuant to the provisions of this Section. Thus, Article 142 (1) of the Income Tax Act provides that a corporation which pays interest income shall submit a payment record of the income under the Income Tax Act to the Government (Article 17 (1) of the Income Tax Act shall be deemed as income generated in the current year because the above Article 63 (2) of the Income Tax Act provides that interest income generated in the current year shall be the total amount of income generated in the current year, and Article 20 (1) of the Income Tax Act provides that interest income generated in Korea and discount amount generated in accordance with the above Article 20 (1) 3 of the Income Tax Act shall not be deemed as income generated in the following year:

Meanwhile, the defendant asserts that the corporation paying negotiable interest on time deposits is also obligated to submit written evidence of payment under the interpretation of the proviso of Article 100-4 (1) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, which provides for the duty to withhold interest on time deposits. As such, Article 39 (1) of the Corporate Tax Act provides that the person who pays interest income or other income to a domestic corporation shall collect corporate tax equivalent to the amount calculated by applying the tax rate under subparagraph 1 or 6 of Article 144 of the Income Tax Act to the amount paid, and pay it to the Government not later than the 10th day of the month following the month in which such tax is collected. In this case, Article 146-2 of the Income Tax Act provides that the payment time of interest income shall be governed by the provisions of Article 10-4 (1) through (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act shall be excluded from the taxation without law because it does not constitute negotiable interest income or other income under Article 39 (1) of the Corporate Tax Act.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the revocation of the taxation disposition of this case is reasonable, and therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition with the defendant's charge which is the losing party.