logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산고등법원 2014.07.23 2013누21083
법인세경정거부처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The issues of the instant case and the judgment of the court of first instance

A. The key issue of the instant case is (1) whether the substance over form principle can be applied to the transfer of the instant shares; (2) If the substance over form principle applies to the transfer of the instant shares, whether the actual owner of the income accrued from the transfer of the instant shares is the person to whom the income accrued, and (3) whether the instant disposition, which denied the benefits of the Netherlands Tax Treaty by deeming the Plaintiff as an intentional company, violates the non-discrimination principle as prescribed in Article 24(1) of the Korea Netherlands Tax Treaty.

B. The judgment of the court of first instance is with respect to the issue ①. The court of first instance determined that “the substance over form principle is a principle based on the Constitution, which can be applied as a matter of course to the interpretation of the tax law in accordance with the principle of equality of taxes under the Constitution, and this cannot be an exception to the application of a tax treaty having legal effect.” In the text of the Netherlands Tax Treaty, “prevention of tax evasion” is also declared as the object of a treaty, Article 3(1) of the Netherlands Tax Treaty, and tax treaties do not have independent authority to impose taxes, but have a function of allocating or restricting the right to impose taxes established under the tax laws of one of the Contracting States. As such, the first determination of whether a specific tax treaty is applicable can only be applied to the transfer of stocks of this case, taking into account the fact that it is determined in accordance with the domestic laws of one of the Contracting States. 2) The court of first instance determined that “the scope of the office leased by the Plaintiff, the number of employees employed by the Plaintiff, the business activity details performed by the Plaintiff after the establishment, the Plaintiff’s investment funds for modern banking transfer income tax, etc.

arrow