logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2017.10.26 2015두53084
법인세부과처분취소
Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes declares the principle of substantial taxation by stating that “If the ownership of income, profit, property, or transaction subject to taxation is merely nominal, and there is another person to whom such ownership belongs, the person to whom such ownership belongs shall be liable to pay taxes and to whom the tax law shall apply.

Therefore, in cases where there is a person who substantially controls and manages a taxable subject to income, profit, property, act, transaction, etc. different from the nominal owner, the nominal owner on account of form and appearance shall not be the person liable for tax payment, but the person who substantially controls and manages the taxable subject to taxation shall be the person liable for tax payment in accordance with the principle of substantial taxation. Determination as to such a case should be made by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, including the details of the use of name, the content of the agreement by the relevant party, the degree and scope of the nominal owner’

In addition, with regard to the difference between the nominal owner of income, etc. and the actual owner of income, etc., it is necessary to assert and prove that the nominal owner who received the taxation disposition has a reasonable doubt, but if it is unclear as to whether the real owner of income, etc. belongs to the nominal owner, thereby making it impossible for the judge to conviction, any disadvantage resulting therefrom is required to be taxed.

The tax authorities have ultimate burden of proof on the existence of facts and the tax base.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2011Du9935 Decided May 16, 2014). 2. A.

The lower court, citing the reasoning of the first instance judgment, acknowledged the following facts.

(1) F and G jointly operated L Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “L”) are G, while acquiring and operating C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) around 2007, the instant shares issued by L on February 18, 2010.

arrow