Seoul High Court 2009Nu2315 ( October 17, 2010)

National High Court Decision 2006No1557 ( October 09, 2007)

It is not possible to make reasonable adjustment because the intrinsic difference between each asset-backed securities issuance transaction and comparable loan transaction is too high.

Each loan transaction cannot be a comparative transaction for each bond-backed securities issue transaction because it cannot be deemed that there is a high possibility of comparison. A special purpose company may distribute dividends in excess of the distributable profits, but it is possible within the scope of income for a business year, and additional dividends are made by a resolution of the board of directors, and the exclusion period of imposition of corporate tax due to the non-deductible of consulting service costs of this case is five years

2010Du6137 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing Corporate Tax

XX Co., Ltd. and two others

Head of the District Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 2009Nu2315 Decided February 17, 2010

September 13, 2012

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3

A. Article 4(1) of the former Adjustment of International Taxes Act (amended by Act No. 9266 of Dec. 26, 2008; hereinafter "the Adjustment of International Taxes Act") provides that "the tax authorities may determine or rectify the resident's tax base and tax amount on the basis of the arm's length price if the transaction price is less than or in excess of the arm's length price in an international transaction between one of the parties to the transaction, which is a foreign special relationship." Article 5(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Adjustment of International Taxes Act provides that "the method of assessing the arm's length price as one of the method of computing the arm's length price: In an international transaction between the residents and the specially related parties, the transaction price between the independent parties to the transaction, in a similar transaction, shall be deemed the arm's length price." Article 5(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Adjustment of International Taxes Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18628 of Dec. 31, 2004, etc.) provides for a comparison between the following reasonable and special relationship between the parties.

나. (1) 원심은 채용 증거에 의하여, ① 원고 XX유동화전문 유한회사는 PP은행으로부터 장부가액 합계 미화 000달러(약 000원) 상당의 리스사 대출채권 등을 미화 000달러(약 000원)에 양수한 다음 2001. 3. 5. 이를 기초자산으로 하여, 원고 XX유동화전문 유한회사는 TT은행으로부터 장부가액 합계 000원 상당의 담보부채권 등을 약 000원에 양수한 다음 2001. 2. 22. 이를 기초자산으로 하여, 원고 OO인베스트먼트 컴퍼니 리미티드의 국내지점은 한국WWWW공사로부터 장부가액 합계 미화 000달러와 한화 약 000원 상당의 회사정리채권 등을 약 000원에 양수한 다음 2000. 10. 17. 이를 기초자산으로 하여, 각 그 발행가액의 1/7은 주식형 유동화증권을, 나머지 6/7은 만기 7년, 이자율 연 14% 내지 18%의 조건으로 채권형 유동화증권을 발행하였고, 이를 원고들의 국외 특수관계자인 XX 캐피탈 원 엘티디(XX Capital Ⅰ, Ltd.) 또는 XX YY 원 엘티디(XX YY Ⅰ, Ltd.)가 인수하여 그 중 위 각 채권형 유동화증권(이하 '이 사건 각 채권형 유동화증권'이라 한다)을 2001. 1. 23.과 2001. 3. 23. 및 2001. 4. 20. 원고들의 다른 국외 특수관계자인 □□ 엘티디(□□, Ltd., 이하 '□□'라 한다)에 매도한 사실, ② □□는 이 사건 각 채권형 유동화증권을 매수하기 위하여 주식회사 QQ은행(이하 'QQ은행'이라 한다)으로부터 2001. 3. 23.과 2001. 4. 23. 그 최초 발행가액의 38% 또는 70%에 상당하는 금액을 만기 약 2.5년, 이자율 연 8.5% 또는 리보금리에 3.5%를 가산한 이율로 정하여 차입하였는데(이하 '이 사건 각 차입거래'라 한다), 리보금리는 2000. 10. 19.을 기준으로 연 6.76%, 2001. 2. 22.을 기준으로 연 5.34%였던 사실, ③ 피고는 이 사건 각 채권형 유동화증권의 이자율이 정상이자율을 초과하는 것으로 보고, 이 사건 각 차입거래를 비교대상거래로 선정하여 그 이자율을 기초로 국제조세조정에관한법률 제5조 제1항 제1호에서 규정한 비교가능 제3자 가격방법에 의한 정상이자율(연 8.5% 또는 연 8.85% 혹은 연 10.26%)을 산정한 다음, 원고들이 □□에게 지급한 이자 중 위와 같이 산정된 정상이자율을 초과하는 부분을 손금불산입하는 등으로 원고들에게 각 사업연도 법인세를 부과하는 이 사건 각 처분(여기에는 아래 제2항에서 보는 원고 XX유동화전문 유한회사에 대한 2001. 6. 사업연도 법인세에 관한 2007. 6. 1.자 증액경정처분도 포함된다)을 한 사실 등을 인정하였다.

(2) 원심은 위와 같은 사실관계를 토대로 하여, ① 이 사건 각 채권형 유동화증권 발행거래는 부실대출채권을 기초로 한 것으로서 부실대출채권 외에는 아무런 담보가 없는 고위험거래인 반면, 이 사건 각 차입거래는 기초 부실대출채권의 회수액이 담보로 제공된 것 외에 □□가 차입거래 당사자로서 차입금의 궁극적인 책임을 부담하는 등 그 자체 신용이 제공되었을 뿐만 아니라, 이 사건 각 채권형 유동화증권의 인수자금 중 □□가 직접 출연한 금액(인수자금의 62% 또는 30%) 또한 이 사건 각 차입거래에 대한 담보장치 역할을 하여 채무불이행 위험이 상당 부분 제거된 비교적 저위험거래로 보이는 점, ② 이 사건 각 채권형 유동화증권의 담보가치비율과 이 사건 각 차입거래의 담보가치비율을 비교하여 보면, 이 사건 각 채권형 유동화증권이 이 사건 각 차입거래보다 채무불이행에 빠질 가능성이 더 큰 점, ③ 비록 피고가 정상이자율을 적용함에 있어 위와 같은 담보가치비율의 차이를 고려하여 이 사건 각 채권형 유동화증권의 발행가액 중 □□가 QQ은행으로부터 차입한 금액에 해당하는 부분에 대해서만 정상이자율을 초과하는 이자를 손금불산입하였다고 하더라도, 그러한 사정만으로 위와 같은 담보가치비율의 차이를 조정할 필요성이 없게 되었다고 볼 수는 없는 점, ④ 이 사건 각 채권형 유동화증권의 만기는 7년인 반면, 이 사건 각 차입거래의 만기는 약 2.5년에 불과한 점 등의 여러 사정을 종합하여 보면, 이 사건 각 채권형 유동화증권 발행거래와 이 사건 각 차입거래의 비교되는 상황의 차이가 정상이자율의 산정에 중대한 영향을 줄 뿐만 아니라, 이러한 각 상황의 차이들은 이자율의 산정에 적용되는 중요한 요소들인데 그 본질적인 차이가 너무 커 합리적인 조정이 곤란하거나 거의 불가능해 보이므로, 이 사건 각 차입거래는 비교가능성이 높다고 할 수 없어 이 사건 각 채권형 유동화증권 발행거래의 비교대상거래가 될 수 없다는 이유로, 이 사건 각 처분 중 피고가 이 사건 각 차입거래를 비교대상거래로 선정하여 정상이자율을 산정한 다음 원고들이 □□에게 지급한 이자 중 위 정상이자율을 초과하는 부분을 손금불산입하여 원고들에게 각 사업연도 법인세를 부과한 부분(원고 XX유동화전문 유한회사 대한 2001. 6. 사업연도 법인세의 경우에는 아래 제2항에서 보는 2007. 6. 1.자 증액경정처분에 의하여 증액된 부분을 제외한 나머지 부분을 말한다)은 위법하다고 판단하였다.

C. Examining the above provisions and relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and there was no error by misapprehending the legal principles on the selection of comparative transactions and the burden of proof in calculating the arm's length price.

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 4 and 5

A. Article 51-2 (1) 1 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8141 of Dec. 30, 2006; hereinafter the same) provides that "where a special purpose company under the Asset-Backed Securitization Act distributes not less than 90/100 of distributable profits as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, the amount shall be deducted from the income amount in the business year concerned," and Article 86-2 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17457 of Dec. 31, 2001) provides that "the amount of distributable profits shall be deducted from the income amount in the business year concerned," and Article 86-2 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17457 of Dec. 31, 2001) provides that "the amount

B. (1) The lower court, based on the evidence of employment, found the following facts: (a) on June 30, 201, the Plaintiff-based limited liability company paid 00 won for consulting service costs of this case to its shareholders on △△△ LC (△△△△△△△; hereinafter “△△△△△”); and (b) on June 1, 2001, it was revealed that the consulting service costs of this case were actually paid without providing services; (c) thereafter, the Plaintiff’s investigation of the consulting service costs of this case was embezzled; (d) on the part of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s 0th executive director of △△△△△△△△△△△△△, and disposed of them as other income; and (e) on the part of the Plaintiff’s 6th executive officer of △△△△△△△△, holding a provisional general meeting of shareholders, approved the appropriation of retained earnings of this case; and (e) on the part of the Plaintiff’s 20th of 6th of △△△△△, etc.

(2) Based on the above factual basis, the lower court determined that, even if the said Plaintiff did not dispose of the consulting service costs of this case as retained earnings and instead of disposing of them as other income (private outflow), the amount equivalent to the consulting service costs of this case, the Plaintiff had the right to claim damages or claim restitution of unjust enrichment against △△, which is the employer of SSri, and did not waive it or confirm the act of embezzlement. Furthermore, as long as the amount equivalent to the consulting service costs of this case was recovered from △△ on May 26, 2006 from △△△△, the increase in the amount of income resulting from the non-deductible of the consulting service costs of this case was reserved against the said Plaintiff. Accordingly, the lower court determined that the additional dividend resolution is lawful, and the dividend should be deducted from the amount of income of the said Plaintiff in the business year of June 2001 pursuant to Article 51-2 (1) of the former Corporate Tax Act, the portion that the Defendant denied the validity of the revised return, i.e., the amount exceeding the initial tax amount.

(3) Examining the above provisions and related legal principles and records, the above fact-finding and determination by the court below are just and acceptable. In so doing, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the income deduction of dividends by the special purpose company, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence

3. Regarding ground of appeal No. 6

The lower court determined as follows, with respect to the instant disposition to rectify the increase, additionally determined as follows. In other words, the Plaintiff’s payment of the consulting service fee is deemed to follow the ordinary business process with △△△, and it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff conspired to engage in the act of embezzlement with △△, or that the consulting service fee was paid with the knowledge of the embezzlement. Thus, the Plaintiff’s act of including the consulting service fee in deductible expenses for the business year on June 1, 2001 cannot be deemed to constitute “Fraud or other unlawful act” under Article 26-2(1)1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 9911, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter the same) and therefore, since the exclusion period of imposition of corporate tax due to the exclusion of deductible expenses from deductible expenses of the instant consulting service fee is five years, the portion exceeding 00 won out of the instant disposition to reduce the exclusion period of imposition was unlawful.

As long as the lower court’s determination on the grounds of appeal Nos. 4 and 5 was justifiable, this part of the lower court’s additional determination did not affect the conclusion of the judgment, and thus, the grounds of appeal on this point cannot be accepted without any need to further examine. Furthermore, even if examining the relevant provisions and legal principles and the records, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is just and acceptable, and there were no errors by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “Fraud or other unlawful acts” as stipulated in Article 26-2(1)1 of the former Framework Act

4. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

The reason of the written judgment is to indicate the judgment on the party's allegations and other means of offence and defense to the extent that it can be recognized that the text is fair, and it is not necessary to judge all the parties' arguments and methods of offence and defense (Article 208 of the Civil Procedure Act).

The court below revoked each of the dispositions of this case by citing the plaintiffs' claims without making a decision on the above assertion, on the grounds that the plaintiffs' assertion that it was unnecessary to review the violation of the principle of prohibition of double tax audit was unlawful. In light of the above legal principles, the court below did not err in omitting judgment on the above measures.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are 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 on the bench.