Article 94 (2) 2 (c) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides that the benefit of which attribution is unclear shall be a bonus to the representative, shall be a valid order based on Article 33 (5) of the Corporate Tax Act, and the imposition of Class A labor income tax on bonus income recognized by law shall be based on the Income Tax Act.

Article 94 (2) 2 (c) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3200, Dec. 28, 79) provides that the corporation shall be a bonus to the representative for the benefit of which the ownership is unclear under Article 94 (2) 2 (c) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5285, Aug. 20, 70) shall be a valid order based on Article 33 (5) of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3200

Article 33(5) of the Corporate Tax Act; Article 94(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act

Gisung Tak corporation

Head of Central Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 71Gu316 delivered on February 15, 1972

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the judgment of the court below, Article 3(5) of the Corporate Tax Act (this provision was enacted at the time of the end of the business year of the plaintiff corporation pursuant to Article 33(4) of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 2050 of Dec. 17, 1968), which was enacted from January 1, 1969, and thereafter was newly established pursuant to Article 33(2) of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 2125 of Jul. 31, 1969) and the location of the item is changed to Article 33(5) of the same Act, and the disposition of the difference between the tax base determined by the preceding paragraph and the net income on the balance sheet of the corporation can be deemed as prescribed by the Presidential Decree in the case of the corporation's disposal of the corporation's bonus after the expiration of the business year (Article 33(5) of the Corporate Tax Act).

In the case of Article 33 (1) of the Corporate Tax Act, the tax base and tax amount of corporate tax on income for each business year of a domestic corporation shall be determined and determined by the Presidential Decree. Article 33 (2) through (4) provides that the Government shall determine the criteria for investigation and determination, and Article 33 (5) provides that dispositions on net income and differences on the tax base and on the balance sheet of the corporation shall be made pursuant to the Presidential Decree. In light of the purport of the whole provision of Article 33 (5) of the same Act, dispositions on net income and difference on the so-called tax base and the balance sheet of the corporation under paragraph (5) of the same Article shall be made pursuant to the Presidential Decree and delegated by the delegation of the same Act concerning the above difference shall be deemed to be a bonus to the representative. Thus, the above provision that the above Enforcement Decree shall be a bonus to the representative for whom the former Enforcement Decree is unclear shall be based on Article 33 (5) of the Corporate Tax Act, and the court below's decision that the income tax on Gap-type corporation's bonus shall be lawful.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Nabri-dong and Dobri-Jaking Hanwon