2014년 조세법 중요 판례

This article aims to review the contents and meanings of some important taxdecisions which were decided in the Supreme Court in 2014. Some important decisions are as follows:(1) Supreme Court 2012du10611 decided on March 13, 2014 held that: Rescission of contract is afactor of ex-post claim for corporate income tax refund. Since tax amount may depend upontaxpayer's arbitrary choice if he can include the effect of rescission of contract in expensesof the tax year when the rescission of contract occurred, the decision is rational. (2) Supreme Court 2012du12822 decided on June 26, 2014 held that: Taxpayers can assert thecancellation of amount of tax originally determined in the appeal litigation for revocation ofreassessment which causes an increase in an amount of taxes if the 3 years period of a rightof ordinary claim for tax refund has not elapsed. This decision well meets the amendmenthistory of the relevant clauses and the legal reasoning of the right of claim for tax refund. (3) Supreme Court 2012du911 decided on June 26, 2014 held that: An assessment of tax based ontax audit which was not conducted on the ground of the old General Law of National Taxes81-5(current 81-6) is illegal. This decision strikes a warning message against arbitrary taxaudits. (4) Supreme Court 2012du10710 decided on September 4, 2014 held that: Where a title truster gotthe sale proceeds by the litigation against a title trustee who sold the title property withoutthe consent of a title truster, the title truster can not be the taxpayer of capital gains. However, what to whom the capital gains are attributed is irrelevant to the fact whether thetitle trustee transferred the sale proceeds to the title truster voluntarily or not. I dont' agreewith this decision. (5) Supreme Court 2013du22147 decided on March 13, 2014 held that: Allowance for employeeretirement benefits is not a personal expense which Restrict of Special Taxation Act 10(1)and the old Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act 8(1) or 9(2)describe. This decision contradicts with the characters that a retirement pay is a kind ofwages and the allowance for employee retirement benefits is allowed as a ductible expense inCorporate Income Act. (6) Supreme Court 2013du20127 decided on April 10, 2014 held that: The clause ofnon-deductibility of interests paid and inclusion in taxable income of deemed interest can notapply to a transaction between non-related persons even though a related person mightbenefit from the transaction indirectly. This decision respects the principle of privateautonomy in the transaction between non-related parties. (7) Supreme Court 2011du23047 decided on April 24, 2014 held that: The calculation of value ofdonated property in an all-inclusive share swap should be made by the Inheritance and GiftAct 42(1)(iii) which rules the transaction of increasing the capital of a corporation. Thisdecision well meets the compound characters of all-inclusive share swap. It doubts, however,whether all-inclusive share swap is a taxable event.