The corporation of this case is not a specific corporation

It is reasonable to interpret that a corporation’s loss was not a specific corporation under Article 41 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and Article 31(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act in the case of a corporation whose loss was fully deducted due to the occurrence of income for each business year during the current business year, although there was a loss carried forward as of

Article 41 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

2014Guhap59313 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

AA

BB Director of the Tax Office

October 2, 2014

November 13, 2014

1. The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 00,00,000 and KRW 00,000,000, which was imposed on the Plaintiff on June 3, 2013, shall be revoked in entirety.

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;

(a)CC (hereinafter referred to as “CC”) is a sort of piracy-related brand;

The deficit of KRW 00,000,000,000, which occurred in 2009 as a company that supplies design and production, was included in the total amount of KRW 00,000,000,00 in the year 2009, and the business year 201 began, and the deficit brought forward under the Corporate Tax Act was included in the total amount of KRW 00,000,000.

B. On April 30, 201, the instant corporation received 00,000 shares of the instant corporation from Nonparty DD, who is a representative director of the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff’s share ownership 00,000, and 00,000 shares of the instant corporation from Female EE (hereinafter “the instant shares”) and accounted for KRW 00,00,00 per share in accordance with the supplementary evaluation methods under the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11130, Dec. 31, 201) by evaluating the shares of the instant corporation as KRW 00,00 per share in accordance with the supplementary evaluation methods under the foregoing Act (amended by Act No. 11130, Dec. 31, 201).

C. On April 30, 201, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office: (a) determined that the Plaintiff, a shareholder of the instant corporation, obtained a benefit under Article 41 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act; (b) calculated the Plaintiff’s donated property as KRW 000,000 (DD donated property),00,000,000 (EE donated property) and notified the Defendant thereof.

D. On June 10, 201, the Defendant, based on the above notification of the director of Seoul Regional Tax Office, determined and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 00,000,000,000, gift tax on DD donations on April 30, 201, and KRW 00,000,000, gift tax on EE donations on the same day (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an objection with the Seoul Regional Tax Office on August 28, 2013, but the Seoul Regional Tax Office dismissed the objection on October 4, 2013. The Plaintiff again filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on December 4, 2013, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal on March 21, 2014. The Plaintiff appealed against this and filed the instant lawsuit on May 29, 2014.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Although the corporation of this case had deficits at the end of 2010 and had deficits carried forward at the end of 2011, the income amount for each business year was generated in 2011 and all losses were extinguished. Accordingly, the assets acquired by the shares of this case was not simply used for the deduction of losses carried forward, but also paid corporate tax for the portion of gains on the receipt of assets, which was included in the calculation of earnings. Ultimately, as the whole of the business year 2011, the losses carried forward were all extinguished and the corporate tax for the gains on the receipt of assets acquired by the shares of this case was paid, it cannot be interpreted as the "specific corporation under Article 41 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act" of this case. Nevertheless, the defendant cannot be interpreted as the "specific corporation under Article 41 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act" of this case on the ground that there was losses carried forward on or around April 30, 2011.

(b) Related statutes;

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

In relation to the legality of the instant disposition, the issue is whether the instant corporation falls under the “specific corporation” under Article 41 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, Article 31(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23591, Feb. 2, 2012; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”). Accordingly, the determination on this issue is made.

Article 41 (1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "where a person who has a special relationship with a stockholder or investor of a corporation having losses or under suspension or closure of business (hereafter referred to as "specific corporation" in this Article) makes any of the following transactions with the specific corporation and thereby the stockholder or investor of the specified corporation obtains profits as prescribed by Presidential Decree, the amount equivalent to such profits shall be deemed the value of property donated to the stockholder or investor of the specified corporation." Article 41 (1) 1 of the same Act provides that "the transaction of providing assets or services free of charge" and Article 41 (2) of the same Act provides that "the specific corporation, persons having a special relationship under paragraph (1), the calculation of profits earned by the stockholder or investor of the specific corporation, the amount of profits significantly low, and the amount of losses significantly high shall be determined by Presidential Decree". Article 31 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "the date of donation under the provisions of paragraph (1) of the same Article shall be included in the gross income of the corporation under paragraph (1) of the same Article:

In full view of the above provisions, even though there was a loss carried forward at the beginning of the business year in which transactions under each subparagraph of Article 41(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, such as the provision of free property as the corporation in this case, have occurred for the following reasons, it is reasonable to interpret that the case of a corporation whose income for each business year was generated during the current business year and all losses were deducted, does not constitute a "specific corporation" under Article 41 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and Article 31(

��특정법인의 주주 또는 출자자와 특수관계에 있는 자(이하 '특수관계자'라 한다)가 당해 특정법인과 일정한 형태의 거래를 한 경우, 이를 당해 특정법인의 주주 또는 출자자에 대한 이익의 증여로 보아 과세를 하는 상속세및증여세법 제41조의 취지는, 결손금이 있는 법인에 재산을 증여하여 그 증여로 인한 자산수증이익과 결손금을 상쇄하여 증여가액에 대한 법인세를 부담하지 아니하면서 실질적으로는 당해 특정법인의 주주 등에게 이익을 주는 변칙적 증여에 대하여 과세를 통해 이를 규제하려는 데에 입법취지가 있다. 이러한 취지에서 상속세및증여세법 시행령 제31조 제6항도 특정법인 중 결손금이 발생한 법인의 경우는 당해 결손금을 한도로만 과세하도록 하여 '당해 증여가액을 결손금과 상쇄시킴으로서 증여가액에 대하여 법인세를 부담하지 아니한 부분'에 대해서만 증여세를 과세하도록 규정하고 있다. 그렇다면, 당해법인과 특수관계자 사이에 상속세및증여세법 제41조 제1항 각호가 정하는 거래가 있었던 사업연도가 시작되던 시점 또는 당해 거래가 있던 시점에는 이월결손금이 존재하고 있었다고 하다라도, 당해 사업연도가 끝나는 시점에는 각 사업연도소득금액으로 인하여 이월결손금이 소멸한 법인의 경우에는, 특수관계자와의 위 거래로 인한 자산수증이익 등에 대하여 법인세가 부과되므로 위 각 규정들의 취지상 상속세및증여세법 제41조의 '특정법인'이 아니라고 해석해야 한다.

��상속세및증여세법 시행령 제31조 제1항 제1호도 "증여일이 속하는 사업연도까지 「법인세법 시행령」 제18조 제1항 제1호의 규정에 의한 결손금이 있는 법인"이 상속세및증여세법 제41조에서 정하는 '특정법인'이라고 규정하고 있어, '증여일이 속하는 사업연도까지' 즉 증여일이 속하는 사업연도가 끝나는 시점에 법인세법상 이월결손금이 존재하지 않게 된경우에는 '특정법인'이 아니라는 취지로 규정하고 있다.

��한편 피고는 상속세및증여세법 시행령 제31조 제1항 제1호가 "이 경우 결손금은 법 제41조 제1항의 규정에 의하여 재산의 증여등에 의한 결손금 보전전의 것으로 하되"라고 규정하고 있는 부분을 들어, 특수관계자가 등해 법인에게 증여 등을 하는 시점에 이월결손금이 존재하고 있었다면 '특정법인'에 포함되어야 한다는 취지로 주장하나, 위 규정 부분은 증여 등이 이루어지던 시점에 이월결손금이 존재하는 상태라면 '특정법인'에 포함된다는 취지의 규정이 아니라, 당해 사업연도를 전체적으로 보아 특정법인에 해당하는지 여부를 판단하되, 결손금이 존재하는지 여부를 판단하는데 있어서는 쟁점이 되는 당해 특수관계자로부터의 증여 등은 제외하고 판단해야 한다는 취지로 해석된다(예컨대 이 사건의 경우, 2011 사업연도에 결손금이 있는지 여부를 판단함에 있어서 이 사건 주식의 증여로 인한 자산수증이익 0,000,000,000원을 제외해야 한다는 의미이다).따라서 이 사건 법인이 상속세및증여세법 제41조에서 규정하는 '특정법인'에 해당한다는 점을 전제로 이루어진 이 사건 처분은 위법하다.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition.