In imposing corporate special surtax, whether Article 49(2)6 of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act may be invoked, as alleged by the Plaintiff, unless otherwise stipulated by the Corporate Tax Act.

Article 3 (1) of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act provides that special taxation and tax reduction and exemption cannot be made unless this Act, treaties, and the following subparagraphs (as referred to in subparagraph 3), and Article 3 (2) provides that special taxation and exemption shall not be made unless otherwise provided for in this Act, the Framework Act on National Taxes, the treaties, and the Acts of each subparagraph of paragraph (1) shall not be included in special surtax under Article 59-2 of the Corporate Tax Act, except as otherwise provided for in the relevant Acts or treaties. Accordingly, in imposing special surtax on a corporation, unless otherwise provided for in the Corporate Tax Act, it shall not be excluded from the taxable object by using Article 49 (2) 6 of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act as alleged by the Plaintiff, and such special provisions cannot be found in Chapter 4-2 of the Corporate Tax Act, the special surtax on the transfer of land, etc.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. Details of taxation; and

The following facts are acknowledged in accordance with Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 4, 5, 7, and evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 1-5, and evidence 1, 2, and 3-2, Gap evidence 8, 9-2, and Gap evidence 8 and 9-9 which are acknowledged to be genuine by the result of the plaintiff's personal examination, the result of the plaintiff's representative's personal examination,

가. 원고는 ㅇㅇ시에서 추진하는 도시계획사업의 일부인 ㅇㅇㅇ시장의 현대화사업 추진을 주목적으로 1984. 9. 7. 설립된 회사로서 재래식 ㅇㅇㅇ시장을 헐고, ㅇㅇ시로부터 대지 4,300여평을 불하받아 그 자리에 지하 1층, 지상 5층의 상가 및 아파트(지하 1층 및 지상 1,2층은 상가이고, 지상 3,4,5층은 아파트인데, 이하 이 사건 건물이라고 한다.)를 건립하여 1991. 3. 31.경 모두 양도하였다.

그런데 이 사건 건물 중 상가의 양도금액은 12,619,380,069원이고, 아파트의 양도금액은 4,378,199,363원으로서 이 사건 건물의 양도금액 합계액은 금 16,997,579,432원이며, 그 밖에 1990. 6. 30. 경 원고 소유의 토지 317㎡를 금26,000,000원에 양도한 바가 있고, 원고가 1990연도에 ㅇㅇ소방파출소의 공사를 포함한 4개의 공사를 수급받아 시공하고서 지급받은 공사대금 합계액이 금220,732,727원이었다. 그리고 원고는 이 사건 건물의 양도대금 중 금5,600,047,159원을 사립학교법에 의하여 1983. 3. 5. 설립허가를 받은 소외 학교법인 ㅇㅇ학원이 운영하는 ㅇㅇ산업대학의 시설비, 연구비 등으로 기부하였다.

B. Here, on June 29, 191, the Plaintiff’s sales amount for the business year from April 1, 1990 to March 31, 1991 to the Defendant is KRW 17,24,312,159. Here, the Plaintiff’s net income per year is KRW 1,128,820,30,30,000,000,000 for corporate tax base for corporate tax from April 1, 1990 to March 31, 1991; KRW 17,24,312,159; KRW 1,244,300,000 for the total amount of the transfer proceeds of the building of this case and the sale proceeds of the land and the construction proceeds thereof; and the amount of sales proceeds of the above donations as well as the sales cost in installments; KRW 1,128,84,646,796,467,967,75,67,29467,7,29467,7,67,29467.

After that, on August 6, 191, the Plaintiff reported to the Defendant that the corporate special surtax was KRW 248,08,031, excluding the corporate special surtax, if it deducts the donation because it falls under Article 49(2)6 of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act.

(3) However, the defendant rejected the plaintiff's revised return, and on July 16, 191, the defendant imposed and notified the tax amount calculated as stated in the column for the initial determination of the tax amount in attached Form No. 497,207,037 (the amount calculated by deducting the tax amount to be paid in installments after adding the additional tax on the plaintiff's initial return tax amount and the additional tax on non-payment) with respect to the corporate special value-added tax that was not paid by the plaintiff, and on August 16, 198 of the same year, 764,367,130 won (the sum of the additional tax on non-payment already filed by the plaintiff) as stated in the column for the determination of the correction of the tax amount in attached Form No. 1.

2. Whether the instant taxation disposition is lawful

피고는, 위와 같은 처분경위와 관계법령에 비추어 이 사건 과세처분은 정당하다고 주장함에 대하여, 원고는, 첫째, 조세감면규제법 제49조 제2항 제6호 등에 의하면, 내국인이 사립학교법에 의한 사립학교에 시설비・교육비 또는 연구비로 지출하는 기부금은 당해 과세연도의 소득금액 계산에 있어서 이월결손금을 차감한 후의 소득금액의 범위 안에서 이를 손금으로 산입한다고 규정되어 있는 바, 이 규정에 의하면, 법인의 부동산 등의 양도로 인한 양도차익에 대하여 부과하는 법인특별부가세를 산정함에 있어서도 그 양도대금을 위와 같이 기부한 경우라면 기부금으로 공제하여야 한다고 해석되며, 이렇게 해석하여야만 법인세에서 기부금을 손비로 처리하는 것과 모순되지 아니하고, 부동산 투기방지와 기업회계를 건전하게 유지하고자 특별부가세를 부과하는 입법취지에 부합되며, 사학재단에 대한 기부행위를 장려하려는 조세감면규제법의 규정취지에도 부합되고, 법인이 부동산을 양도하고 그 양도대금을 기부한 경우와 부동산을 막바로 기부한 경우와의 사이에 세액의 차이를 피할 수 있다 할 것인데도, 이에 반하여 원고가 ㅇㅇ산업대학에 기부한 돈을 전액 과세표준에 포함시켜서 한 이 사건 과세처분은 위법하며, 둘째, 원고가 신축하여 양도한 이 사건 건물 중 상당부분은 주택이고, 법인세법 시행령 제124조의3 제5항에 의하면, 주택을 신축하여 판매하는 경우에는 그 주택의 양도에 대하여 특별부가세의 과세대상에서 제외하고 있으니, 주택마저 포함하여 부과한 이 사건 과세처분은 이 점에서도 위법하다고 주장한다.

First of all, according to Article 3 (1) of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act, the first argument of the plaintiff is that special taxation and tax reduction or exemption cannot be made unless it is provided by this Act, the Framework Act on National Taxes, the treaties, and the following subparagraphs (as third, corporate tax). Paragraph (2) of this Article provides that taxes to be reduced or exempted under this Act, the Framework Act on National Taxes, the treaties, and the Acts referred to in each subparagraph of paragraph (1) shall not include special surtax under Article 59-2 of the Corporate Tax Act, except as otherwise provided by the relevant Acts or treaties. Accordingly, in imposing special surtax on a corporation, unless otherwise provided by the Corporate Tax Act, the donation cannot be excluded from taxable object by using Article 49 (2) 6 of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act as alleged by the plaintiff, and there is no such special provision in Chapter 4-2 of the Corporate Tax Act, the special surtax on the transfer of land, etc.

Then, the plaintiff's second argument is examined, and as acknowledged above, the plaintiff calculated gains on transfer and reported a corporate special surtax only on the commercial building except for the housing (multi-family housing) among the buildings of this case, and accordingly, the tax disposition of this case was conducted. Thus, the above argument is groundless.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the taxation disposition of this case is legitimate, and the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit, and it is dismissed, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition.

October 21, 1992