2012west 4986

Non-deductible expenses of interest paid by a real estate trading corporation;

The transfer of assets of a corporation engaging in real estate sales business shall not be deemed unrelated to business for business purposes, and in the case of physical division, since the economic substance is not different from that of the division, the provision on non-deductible expenses of interest shall not be applied

Article 49 of the Enforcement Decree of Corporate Tax Act

2013Guhap54069 Revocation of Disposition of Corporate Tax Imposition

AA Corporation

The director of the tax office

September 13, 2013

November 5, 2013

1. On August 2, 2012, the Defendant revoked the disposition of imposition of an OOO (including additional OOO) of the corporate tax for the business year 2009 against the Plaintiff.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

" 가. 원고는 부동산개발 및 공급업, 토목건축공사업, 주택 및 상가건설업 등을 영위하던 법인으로, 1997년부터 2004년까지 순차적으로 OO시 OO구 OO동 681-2 대 6,693.1㎡ 외 407필지의 토지 총 1,937,509㎡(이하이 사건 토지'라 한다)를 취득하여 보유하다가, 2009. 12. 30. 지주회사 전환을 함에 있어 주택건설사업과 해외사업 부문 등을 물적 분할하여 주식회사 AA주택(이하AA주택'이라 한다)을 설립한 후, 이 사건 토지를 회사분할을 원인으로 AA주택에게 이전하였다.", " 나. 원고는 이 사건 토지 취득일을 기준으로 구 법인세법 시행령(2011. 6. 3. 대통령령 제22951호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 같다) 제49조 제1항 제1호 가목 단서 소정의 업무사용 유예기간(이하유예기간'이라 한다)인 취득일로부터 5년이 경과하기 이전은 이 사건 토지를 업무용 부동산으로, 유예기간 5년이 경과한 이후부터 물적 분할에 따라 이 사건 토지를 AA주택에게 이전하기 전까지는 이를 비업무용 부동산으로 보아 2009 사업연도 볍인세 신고를 하였다.", " 다. 그런데 그 후 서울지방국세청에 대한 업무감사에서 감사원은 원고가 물적 분할로 이 사건 토지를 AA주택에 양도하기 전까지 이 사건 토지를 업무와 관련하여 사용한 사실이 없으므로 이 사건 토지 취득일로부터 양도일까지의 기간 전체에 대하여 이 사건 토지를 비업무용 부동산으로 보아야 한다고 지적하였고, 서울지방국세청은 위 지적에 따라 피고에게 이 사건 토지의 유예기간(취득일로부터 5년) 동안의 취득자금 관련 지급이자를 손금불산입 하라는 취지의 과세자료 통보를 하였으며, 이에 피고는 위 통보에 따라 이 사건 토지의 양도일, 즉 물적 분할일이 속하는 원고의 2009 사업연도의 법인세액을 재계산하여 2012. 8. 2. 원고에게 법인세 OOOO원(가산세 OOOO원 포함)을 고지하였다(이하이 사건 처분'이라 한다).", 라. 원고는 이 사건 처분에 불복하여 2012. 10. 30. 조세심판원에 심판청구를 하였으나, 위 청구는 2012. 2. 26. 기각되었다.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without studio, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

"The transfer of real estate acquired and held as inventory assets by the same corporation, unlike the general corporation, shall be deemed to be directly used for the business. Thus, the case where the plaintiff transferred the land of this case after the grace period expires, it shall not be deemed to fall under the case where the plaintiff continues to use the relevant real estate for the business, and therefore, the interest paid for the acquisition of the land of this case shall not be deemed to be related to the business, i.e., the period of non-taxation, excluding the period overlapping with the grace period pursuant to the main sentence of the above subparagraph." Further, the land of this case was transferred to AA house due to physical division. However, according to the proviso of Article 49 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, Article 26 (5) 25 of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 26 (5) 1 of the Corporate Tax Act, the transfer period shall not be deemed to be unlawful since the right and obligation related to the merger or division is comprehensively succeeded to the business and the economic substance is not related to the transfer period after the transfer period.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

Article 27 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10423, Dec. 30, 2010; hereinafter the same) provides that any of the following amounts among expenses paid by a domestic corporation for each business year shall not be included in deductible expenses in calculating the income amount for the relevant business year, and subparagraph 1 of the same Article provides that such amounts shall be the amount prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as expenses incurred by the acquisition and management of assets deemed not directly related to the business of the relevant corporation, which are assets prescribed by Presidential Decree. The purport of the above provision is to prevent unreasonable corporate expansion dependent on other capital and reckless corporate expansion for real estate speculation and non-productive type of business by the large enterprise's financial capital, thereby inducing the sound economic activities of the company and promoting the efficient utilization of the land (see Supreme Court Decisions 98Du7916, Nov. 24, 200; 91Nu1643, Oct. 27, 192):

Article 49 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act prescribes the scope of assets not related to the business of a corporation pursuant to delegation of Article 27 (1) 1 of the former Corporate Tax Act. Article 27 (1) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides that "property prescribed by Presidential Decree under Article 27 (1) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree shall not be used directly for the business of a corporation: Provided, That the real estate which is not used for the business of a corporation shall be excluded from the real estate which is not used for the business of a corporation: Provided, That under the proviso of Article 27 (1) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, the real estate which has an inevitable reason prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance shall be excluded from this case's disposal." However, according to the above disposal circumstance, the land of this case constitutes "real estate not used directly for the business of a corporation under the main sentence of Article 49 (1) 1 (a) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, and Article 26 (5) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act shall not be directly related to the land of this case.

Therefore, the period of deeming that it is not related to the business of the land of this case may vary depending on whether the transfer of the land of this case constitutes a transfer as referred to in the above proviso on the ground as alleged by the plaintiff, and the following shall be examined.

Article 49 (1) 1 (a) (proviso) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides that a corporation shall not be deemed a real estate irrelevant to its business within a certain grace period after considering its preparation period. Considering the purport of the grace period, where real estate is not used for its business after the lapse of the grace period under the proviso of Article 26 (9) 1 of the Corporate Tax Act, the transfer of the above real estate to a corporation without real estate under the proviso of Article 26 (9) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act shall not be used for its business, and the transfer of the real estate to a corporation without real estate under the proviso of Article 26 (9) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act shall be deemed to be a separate provision for a grace period for the transfer of the real estate to a corporation without real estate under the proviso of Article 26 (9) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act. In other words, the transfer of real estate to a corporation without real estate under the proviso of the latter Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act shall be deemed to be a separate provision for the transfer of real estate.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.