Whether there is a duty to submit a statement of payment on foreign currency bonds

Since the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have justifiable grounds for failing to submit a statement of payment on the foreign currency claim to the Plaintiff, the imposition of additional tax is legitimate.

Article 120-2 of the Corporate Tax Act

Suwon District Court 2014Guhap57561 ( November 11, 2015)

Since the payment statement on the interest paid was not submitted at all, it is subject to additional tax under Article 76 (7) of the Corporate Tax Act.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

B. Whether the Plaintiff bears the duty to submit a statement of payment

According to Gap evidence No. 3, the plaintiff was 000 Bank (00 Bank) and overseas.

of 000 Bank's investment as an agent, in the issuance of bonds denominated by the Corporation.

It is recognized that the Plaintiff entered into a delegation contract to be paid to its people, and the Plaintiff 000

The fact that the interest paid in this case was paid to a foreign corporation as a bondholder through a bank

as seen above. However, Article 120-2(1) of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 162-2(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act

corporation shall be liable to submit a statement of payment of the person who paid domestic source income to the foreign corporation.

F. On the sole basis of the facts acknowledged earlier, the issuer of foreign currency claims and the principal agent of substantial interest payment

It is not enough to recognize that banks, not the Plaintiff, bear the duty to submit a statement of payment;

There is no evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

(c) the existence of justifiable reasons for an exemption from an additional duty;

Tax amount under tax law is to facilitate the exercise of taxation rights and the realization of tax claims.

If a person violates a report or tax liability prescribed by law without justifiable grounds, the law shall determine.

As administrative sanctions imposed pursuant to this Act, the taxpayer’s intentional or negligent negligence shall not be considered;

In addition, it is unreasonable for a taxpayer to be unaware of his duty, if he did not know of his duty.

If there are circumstances that can justify, the penalty can not be imposed, but the law can not be imposed.

A site or mistake may not be deemed a justifiable ground (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da1448, May 23, 2013).

2013Du1829, supra.

Provisions excluded in light of the health care unit, the structure and language of the relevant statute, etc.

It is necessary to submit an application for non-taxation and exemption with no corporate tax imposed under the domestic tax law.

As mentioned above, the non-income shall be subject to the submission of a statement of payment.

However, the subject of submission by the Plaintiff of the statement of payment under the exclusion provision is non-taxation and exemption application.

any person who, in spite of his duty to submit it, determines that it is limited to any failure to do so.

It is nothing more than a misunderstanding of any content without any other text of the law interpreted by the law.

D. Justifiable company that the Plaintiff failed to submit a statement of payment of the interest paid in this case

It is difficult to see that there is a good reason, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

In addition, there is no reason to believe that the plaintiff's other reasons alone do not constitute a breach of duty.

No reason may be deemed to exist.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

5. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is without merit, and all of the claims are dismissed. It is so ordered as per Disposition.

partnership.

Korea000 Corporation

00. Head of tax office

2015.23

November 11, 2015

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

The imposition of corporate tax of 00 won for the business year 2010, corporate tax of 00 won for the business year 2011, and corporate tax of 00 won for the business year 201 and 0 won for the business year 2012 shall be revoked by the former defendant at office on December 18, 2013.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a domestic corporation established with the aim of promoting a reasonable operation of housing construction, supply, lease, and management under the Korea Construction Corporation Act and the Housing Act, etc.

나. 원고는 국외에서 외화로 표시된 채권을 발행하고 대행법인(000 Bank)을 통하여 채권소지자인 외국법인에게 채권에 대한 이자로 2010년(7월 〜 12월) 분0원, 2011년 분 0원, 2012년 분 0원(이하 통틀어 '이 사건 지급이자'라 한다)을 각 지급하였다. 원고는 이 사건 지급이자가 조세특례제한법에 의하여 법인세가 과세되지 아니하거나 면제되는 국내원천소득에 해당한다고 보아 구 법인세법(2011. 12. 31. 법률 제11128호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 '법인세법'이라 한다) 제120조의2, 구 법인세법 시행령(2013. 2. 15. 대통령령 제24357호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 '시행령'이라고 한다)제162조의2 제1항 제1호에 따라 이 사건 지급이자에 관한 지급명세서를 제출하지 아니하였다.다. 피고는 2013. 12. 18. 원고에게 이 사건 지급이자가 조세특례제한법에 따라 비과세・면제신청서를 제출하지 아니하는 경우에 해당하여 지급명세서의 제출이 면제되는 대상에 해당하지 않는다는 이유로 법인세법 제76조 제7항에 따라 지급명세서 미제출에따른 가산세(법인세) 2010 사업연도 귀속분 100,000,000원, 2011 사업연도 귀속분0원, 2012 사업연도 귀속분 0원을 각 결정・고지하였다(이하 통틀어 '이 사건 처분'이라 한다). 라. 원고는 이에 불복하여 2014. 3. 14. 조세심판원에 심판청구를 하였으나, 2014. 5. 26. 그 청구가 기각되었다.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant disposition is unlawful as follows, and all of the disposition should be revoked.

A. The Plaintiff is not obliged to submit a statement of payment.

Article 162-2(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree provides that "where a person fails to submit an application for non-taxation or exemption, he/she shall submit a statement of payment as an exception." This is limited to cases where the person fails to perform the obligation to submit an application for non-taxation or exemption pursuant to the Corporate Tax Act or the Restriction of Special Taxation Act. However, the interest paid in this case constitutes income exempt from corporate tax as a matter of course pursuant to Article 21 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act without a need to submit an application for non-taxation or exemption, and thus, it cannot be deemed as subject to submission of a statement of payment pursuant to the original provision of Article 162-2(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree.

B. It is borne by an interest payment agency that shall submit a statement of payment.

Even if Article 162-2 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree orders the submission of a statement of payment for the purpose of securing tax information in all cases where the application for non-taxation and exemption is not submitted as a result, the above obligation to submit a statement of payment shall not be the plaintiff's obligation, but shall be borne by the agency that concluded the delegation contract with

(c) Justifiable reasons;

Even if the Plaintiff bears the duty to submit the above statement of payment, there exists a justifiable reason that could not be caused to the Plaintiff’s breach of duty. As such, the Plaintiff, a taxpayer, was unaware of the Plaintiff’s duty to submit the statement of payment due to the conflict in view of the interpretation of tax-related Acts and subordinate statutes and without established precedents. In addition, in order to submit the statement of payment, information such as the name (name of a legal entity), identification number, address, etc. of an investor, foreign corporation or non-resident should be known, and there was no way to collect information about each investor abroad from the Plaintiff (in fact, the Plaintiff requested a payment agency to provide information about investors on several occasions, and the interest payment agency has given notice that it is impossible to provide personal information pursuant to the Switzerland domestic law, which is the governing law). Therefore, it is unlawful to impose additional tax even in such a case.

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

4. Determination

(a) Scope of those subject to submission of payment statements under Article 120-2 (1) 1 of the Corporate Tax Act;

1) Provisions regarding the duty to submit a statement of payment

Article 120-2 (1) of the Corporate Tax Act provides that any person who pays domestic source income to a foreign corporation shall, in principle, submit a statement of payment to the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment. However, the proviso provides that any person who pays income prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as income confirmed as eligible for non-taxation or exemption, shall not submit a statement of payment. In this regard, Article 162-2 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act and the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that no person is obligated to submit a statement of payment for domestic source income that is exempt from corporate tax or exempted from corporate tax under the Corporate Tax Act and the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (hereinafter referred to as "special provision").

2) Interpretation of exclusion provisions

In light of the principle of no taxation without law, or the requirements for tax exemption or tax exemption, the interpretation of tax laws shall be interpreted in accordance with the text of the law, barring special circumstances, and it shall not be permitted to expand or analogically interpret without reasonable grounds (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du20540, Feb. 13, 2014).

As seen earlier, the special provisions restrict the scope of exemption by stipulating that the payment statement should be submitted in principle in case of "in the case of non-taxation and exemption application is not submitted even though the obligation to submit the payment statement is exempted for domestic source income exempted from corporate tax."

Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the submission of a statement of payment in accordance with the exclusion provision includes not only the case where the duty to submit an application for non-taxation and exemption is not fulfilled, but also the case where the application for non-taxation and exemption is not required from the beginning or is not subject to the submission.The special provisions that can be the premise of the exclusion provision stipulate only the whole of the income subject to non-taxation and exemption under the Corporate Tax Act and the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, excluding the income subject to non-taxation and exemption without submitting a separate application under the provisions of the Act.

In addition, the payment record under the Corporate Tax Act is not a premise for the obligation to submit the application for non-taxation and exemption under the concept by stating the matters concerning the person who pays income and the kind of income that is paid, the date of payment, the amount of payment, etc. The Enforcement Decree newly established a provision that limits the scope of application of the special provisions through the amendment of February 18, 2010 (Presidential Decree No. 22035). The purport of the amendment is that even if a separate application is not submitted, it would be difficult to confirm the tax information of the income recipient as a matter of course in case of income exempt or exempt from taxation under the domestic tax law. Furthermore, the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act does not clearly state that it is non-taxation and exemption from domestic source income under Article 21(1) of the Corporate Tax Act, which is non-taxation and exemption from taxation (Presidential Decree No. 25194), which is non-taxation and exemption from taxation, to the effect that it does not apply to the above amendment of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act.