Whether the accumulation of the reserve for corporate rationalization prescribed in Article 16 of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 3481 of Dec. 31, 1981) is a prior requirement for corporate tax reduction or exemption or deduction.

The accumulation of the reserve for corporate rationalization prescribed in Article 16 of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 3481 of Dec. 31, 1981) is not a requirement to be performed first for the reduction or exemption of corporate tax or the deduction of corporate tax, but a person who has been reduced or exempted after receiving the reduction or exemption of corporate tax after receiving the reduction or exemption of corporate tax is a requirement to be performed at the time of disposal of profits for the business year in which the reduction or exemption has been made, and is merely a requirement to

Article 16(1) of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (Law No. 3481, Dec. 31, 1981)

Central Investment Finance Corporation

Head of Central Tax Office

The disposition of imposition of corporate tax of KRW 248,678,224 of the business year against the plaintiff as of June 2, 1983 and corporate tax of KRW 102,581,902 of the business year of June 2, 1982 shall be revoked, respectively.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. 피고가 1983. 6. 2.자로 원고에 대하여 1981. 사업연도 법인세 248,678,224원, 1982. 사업연도 법인세 102,581,902원의 부과처분을 한 사실은 서로 다툼이 없고, 성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 4호증의 1 내지 4, 갑 5호증의 1 내지 5, 갑 10호증의 1, 2, 갑 11호증의 1, 2, 갑 14호증의 각 기재와 변론의 전취지에 의하면, 원고는 1979. 2. 22. 1,500,000,000원, 1979. 12. 29. 2,000,000,000원 두 차례에 걸쳐 합계 3,500,000원을 증자함에 있어 이 가운데 금융기관출자액 173,070,000원을 뺀 3,326,930,000원은 정부, 지방자치단체 및 금융기관 이외의 자로부터 금전출자를 받아 자본을 증가하고, 당시의 조세감면규제법(1980. 12. 13. 법 제3272호로 개정되기 전까지의 법)4조의 2 에 따라 1979. 1980. 두 사업연도의 소득금액에서 같은조 소정의 산식에 따라 산출한 금액을 각 공제받고, 그 공제받은 소득금액 상당액을 기업합리화적립금으로 적립하여온 사실, 그런데 1980. 12. 13. 법 제3272호로 조세감면규제법 4조의 2 제2항 제2호 (1981. 12. 31. 법 제3481호로 개정된 조세감면규제법에서는 제55조 제2항 제2호 로 됨, 이에 따르면 자본을 증가한 후에 대통령령이 정하는 법인의 주식을 취득하기 위하여 지출한 금액등이 증가된 자본금액의 10/100을 초과하지 않는 경우에 한하여 증자소득공제를 받을 수 있도록 되어 있다)가 신설되고, 마침 원고 역시 1981. 8. 11. 위 같은조 제2항 제2호 소정의 특수관계인에 해당하는 소외 동국건설주식회사의 주식을 취득하기 위하여 위에서 본 유상증자액 3,500,000,000원의 10/100을 넘는 1,700,000,000원을 지출한 사실, 이에 원고는 위 규정이 신설되기 전에 증자를 한 원고와 같은 경우에도 위 규정이 적용되어 1981. 사업연도부터는 증자소득공제를 받을 수 없게 되는 것인지 이를 확인하기 위하여 1982. 2. 13. 세무사 우주선을 통하여 국세청장 앞으로 이에 대한 질의를 한 결과, 1982. 3. 3. 위와 같은 경우에는 증자소득공제를 받을 수 없다는 취지의 회답을 받고 이에 따라 증자소득공제신청을 하지 아니하고 1981. 사업연도분에 대하여는 1982. 3. 27. 1982. 사업연도분에 대하여는 1982. 9. 15.(1982.부터 6. 30.로 사업연도가 변경됨) 각 과세표준확정 신고를 한 사실, 그러다가 1982. 9. 무렵 위 4조의 2 2항 2호 의 신설규정은 1981. 1. 1.부터 시행되는 것이므로 그 이전에 이미 증자가 이루어진 원고와 같은 경우에는 위 조항에 관계 없이 계속하여 증자소득공제를 받을 수 있다는 1982. 2. 26.자로 된 국세청장의 또 다른 유권해석이 있음을 알고 이를 근거로 증자소득공제를 받기 위하여 ① 1982. 9. 25. 1981. 사업연도 법인세과세표준 및 세액의 수정신고를 하고 1982. 10. 21. 갱정결정을 받아 1982. 10. 25. 위 수정신고분에 대한 175,661,904원의 법인세환급을 받았으며, ② 1982. 12. 15. 1982. 사업연도(사업연도 변경으로 결산주주총회도 1982. 8. 25.에 하였음)법인세과세표준 및 세액의 수정신고를 하고 1982. 12. 18. 갱정결정을 받아 1982. 12. 22. 그 수정신고분에 대한 83,536,502원의 법인세 환급을 받은 후 그 다음 사업연도의 이익금처분시인 1983. 8. 26. 모두 800,000,000원을 기업합리화 적립금으로 적립을 한 사실, 그런데 그후 피고가 1982. 6. 2. 위 조세감면규제법상의 증자소득공제를 받기 위하여는 수정신고를 하기에 앞서 반드시 소정의 절차에 따라 기업합리화적립금을 먼저 적립하여야 함에도 원고의 경우에는 이러한 절차를 밟지 않고 수정신고를 하였기 때문에 위 법소정의 증자소득공제를 받을 수 없다는 이유로 위에서 본바와 같은 내용의 이 사건 부과처분을 하기에 이른 사실을 인정할 수 있고 반증 없다.

2. However, according to Article 16(1) of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption before the wholly amended Act on December 31, 1981 (amended from January 1, 1982), a person subject to reduction and exemption or deduction of corporate tax pursuant to the provisions of Article 4-2(1) of the same Act requires that the amount equivalent to the tax amount reduced or exempted (the amount of the deducted income in case of income deduction) should be accumulated as the reserve for corporate rationalization. However, the accumulation of the reserve for corporate rationalization required under Article 16(1) of the same Act or the provisions of Article 17 of the same Act requires that the person subject to reduction and exemption or deduction of corporate tax should accumulate, and use the amount equivalent to the amount of the tax reduced, exempted or deducted as the reserve for corporate rationalization (Article 16 of the same Act) for the following purposes, and that the person subject to reduction and exemption or deduction of corporate tax or the amount of the deducted corporate tax should not be seen as having been subject to reduction and exemption or exemption under the above provisions of the Corporate Tax Act for the aforementioned purposes of reduction and Exemption and Exemption and Exemption and Exemption Act for the same Purposes:

Therefore, among the taxation in this case, the taxation in this case is not illegal because it considers the accumulation of reserves for corporate rationalization as a prior requirement to reduce or exempt corporate tax even for the portion in the business year of December 31, 1981, which is subject to the Act on the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption prior to the amendment by Act No. 3481, which is subject to the Act on the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption prior to the amendment by Act No. 3481, Dec. 31, 1981, and imposed tax without deducting the income from the capital increase (in addition, the revised tax return on September 25, 1982 and the revised tax return on October 21, 1982, it cannot be collected in excess of the amount accumulated as reserves for corporate rationalization at the time of disposing of profits thereafter).

Therefore, according to the proviso of Article 91(2) of the Tax Reduction and Exemption Control Act and Article 65(1)2 and (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, where a domestic corporation’s closing date (referring to the closing date of accounts under Article 26(3) of the Corporate Tax Act) of the pertinent taxable year increases the corporate rationalization reserve to be accumulated in the pertinent taxable year due to the tax adjustment after the tax adjustment, the amount equivalent to the shortage of the corporate rationalization reserve to be accumulated in the next taxable year should be accumulated as the corporate rationalization reserve in the disposition of profits for the following taxable year. On the other hand, the tax adjustment refers to a series of procedures including the calculation of taxable income and tax base, as well as the calculation of the amount of tax to be paid, and it is reasonable that the Plaintiff made a revised tax return on September 15, 1982, and then made a revised tax reduction and exemption pursuant to Article 65(1)2 and (3) of the same Act.

Therefore, even if it is necessary to accumulate in the disposition of profits for the following business year pursuant to Article 65(3) of the same Act, the Plaintiff’s business rationalization reserve corresponding to the above business rationalization reserve at the time of disposing of profits for the following business year. As seen above, the disposition of imposition of profits for the business year of 1982 cannot be exempted.

3. If so, since the disposition of this case is all illegal, the plaintiff's claim seeking its revocation is justified, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-chul (Presiding Judge)