2012 Middle 3792

The user bears part of the lease deposit, and the house jointly leased with the employee falls under the leased house excluded from the wage and salary income.

The defendant's disposition of rejecting the plaintiff's claim for correction of earned income tax on the premise that the house leased is not a company house is unreasonable.

2013Guhap329 Demanding revocation of a request for rectification of earned income tax

AAA Corporation

1. Head of the competent tax office; and

June 28, 2013

August 16, 2013

1. On June 8, 2012, the head of the tax office’s tax office’s rejection of an application for the rectification of wage and salary income tax by either OOO or OOO or employee for the year 2009 as of April 9, 2012 against the Plaintiff, and the rejection of an application for rectification of wage and salary income tax by either OO or employee for the year 2009 as of April 17, 2012 and OO or employee for the year 2010 as of April 17, 2012, respectively, shall be revoked.

2. On May 24, 2012, the head of the Chuncheon tax office’s rejection of an application for rectification of wage and salary income tax on the part of the Plaintiff on April 17, 2012, which was filed against the Plaintiff, shall be revoked, respectively.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendants.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, a public corporation established for the purpose of building and managing a road, provides a lessee's housing in the form of a joint lease contract (hereinafter referred to as a "joint lease housing") to its employees accompanied by dependants by establishing a "standard for supporting the operation of residential stability as a public corporation established for the purpose of building and managing the road." In the event that the lease deposit is within the support limit under the above standard, the lease deposit amount exceeds the support limit by the method that the Plaintiff directly concludes a lease contract (hereinafter referred to as the "self-lease housing provided by the above method"), the Plaintiff provided the remainder to the employees by the method that the Plaintiff concludes a joint lease contract (hereinafter referred to as the "joint lease housing contract"), and see the detailed contents of the above two lease housing supply method as follows:

B. The Plaintiff’s offer of a single lessee’s housing is excluded from the subject of the avoidance of wrongful calculation under the Corporate Tax Act, and did not pay corporate tax or labor income tax on the housing that was excluded from the scope of wage and salary income under the Income Tax Act. However, regarding the provision of a joint lessee’s housing, the Plaintiff deemed the amount borne by the Plaintiff as a provisional payment irrelevant to business, and reported and paid corporate tax by adding the recognized interest to deductible expenses, and the employee deemed the profit that the employee received as a company housing as earned income and reported and paid the amount of labor

C. In a case where the provision of a company house subsidy is deemed to be identical to that of the provision of a company house in substance, the Supreme Court Decision (Supreme Court Decision 2004Du7993 Decided May 11, 2006) rendered that the provision of a company house subsidy is not subject to the avoidance of unfair calculation under the Corporate Tax Act, and the corporate tax already paid on December 30, 201 was refunded. The above judgment is interpreted to apply mutatis mutandis to the wage and salary income tax, and the provision of a joint lessee’s house should be deemed to be a company house excluded within the scope of the wage and salary income, and the provision of the joint lessee’s house should be deemed to be the provision of a company house that is excluded from the scope of the wage and salary income. Accordingly, with respect to the wage and salary income tax paid to the head of the Defendant on April 9, 2009 and the OOO for 2010 for 200O00 and 20100O00,000.

D. On June 8, 2012, the director of the tax office at the beginning of the Defendant: (a) received a company house or a loan of funds needed for the lease of a house from the Plaintiff’s respective request for correction without compensation; (b) in principle, the profit earned by the employee constitutes earned income of the relevant employee; and (c) in such case, the amount exceeding the standard amount should be borne by the employee; and (d) in case where the lessee enters into a lease contract with the employee as a joint lessee of a corporation, he/she did not fall under the scope of a company house

(e) On May 24, 2012, the director of the Chuncheon Tax Office rendered a disposition rejecting the above disposition on the grounds that the corporation's security deposit for lease within the standard amount under the company regulations is borne by the corporation and the employees are borne by the corporation or the rent for each month in excess of the standard amount shall not fall under the scope of company houses excluded from the object of taxation of wage and salary income if a lease contract with a corporation and employees is concluded as a joint lessee, and the security deposit to be borne by the corporation shall not fall under the scope of company houses excluded from the object of taxation of wage and salary income, and the security deposit to be borne by the corporation shall be the profit derived from the free lending of housing (hereinafter referred to as "the disposition of this case")."

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) In a case where the Plaintiff and his employees jointly rent a company house, the same can be deemed as the case where the Plaintiff directly rents the company house, and the Supreme Court precedents regard the provision of the company house subsidy as the provision of the company house excluded from the object of the denial of wrongful calculation under the Corporate Tax Act. However, the interpretation of the above Supreme Court precedents is valid in interpreting the same provision as the Enforcement Decree and the Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act, which provides the same contents as the Enforcement Rule and the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act. Therefore

2) The imposition of the labor income tax on the amount of the subsidy is a discrimination against a reasonable ground and is in violation of the principle of tax equality in the case of an employee receiving a single rental house or an employee receiving a joint rental house.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

Article 38(1)6 and 7 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23987, Jul. 24, 2012) provides that the profits earned by acquiring a house and the profits earned by an employee by borrowing the money required for the purchase and lease of a house (including the land attached to the house) at low interest or without compensation shall be deemed as constituting the earned income subject to the imposition of wage and salary income tax. However, the proviso to Article 38(1)6 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that the case where an employee receives a company house prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance shall be excluded from the scope of wage and salary income. Article 15-2(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax stipulates that one of the houses excluded

In the case of this case, the following circumstances revealed comprehensively considering the purport of the entire arguments, namely, ① the Plaintiff, a public corporation, which constructed and manages a road, inevitably requires the provision of a company house for employees who worked in a notice without delay for the efficient management and operation of the local headquarters located in each area across the country, the construction project team, etc. ② the Plaintiff and the employees who received the deposit money, entered into a lease contract with the Plaintiff and the employees who received the deposit money, and the lease deposit provided by the Plaintiff under the above lease contract provide that the lessor shall directly return the deposit money to the Plaintiff, etc., are directly involved in the process of concluding the contract. ③ The sole lessee and the joint lessee are only in the form of the contract, and ③ the requirements for support, exclusion conditions, repayment methods, etc. are identical to the economic interest of the employees who received the separate lessee and the employees who received the joint lessee’s house are identical, and thus, it is unlawful to deem the Defendants to bear the income tax on the sole ground that the separate lessee was provided only for the reason that they received the joint lessee’s house in accordance with the housing circumstances.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the plaintiff's claim is well-grounded, all of them shall be accepted, and it is decided as per Disposition.