법인세에서 계약해제로 인한 후발적 경정청구에 관한 소고

The judgement of the Supreme Court was pronounced for the first time which arranged the conflicting views of the lower courts concerning the issue whether the corporation parcelling out new apartments could file ex post request for correction or not, if the parcelling-out contract was rescinded later. In the judgement, the Supreme Court said that “the contractual rescindment also can be grounds for filing ex post request for correction in principle as for the corporate tax”, but with the exception that “when a corporation has special circumstances to have reported the corporate tax by the way of decreasing the amounts of income of the business year which includes the date of rescindment regarding the rescindment of ordinary and repetitive product sales contract, etc. according to the corporate accounting standards and practices, it cannot be a reason for filing ex post request for correction”. The Framework Act on National Taxes prescribes that if other tax-related Acts provide special provisions on filing ex post request for correction, such tax-related Acts shall prevail. But unlike Japan, we don’t have any general special provisions in other tax-related Acts on filing ex post request for correction with regard to later occurring reasons like contractual rescindment. And the problem in which business year we should make accrue the income and expenses resulted from contractual rescindment have no bearing on the settlement principle of rights and obligations, the general principle about the matter of business year in which income and expenses accrue. Consequently, the corporate accounting standards and practices should be applied to this matter supplementarily according to the provision of Article 43 of the Corporate Tax Act. Because, according to the current corporate accounting standards and practices, we can say such standards and practices that the corporation should reflect the change of profit and loss from a rescindment of ordinary and repetitive sales contract in the amounts of income of the business year which includes the date of rescindment exist, the conclusion of the judgement can be said to be reasonable as a result of that. But I cannot help but say it make me feel something lacking that the judgement only released the conclusion concerning this matter omitting the sequential review and analysis of the contents and details of the provisions of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the Corporate Tax Act and the current corporate accounting standards and practices. Nevertheless, I would like to give great importance to the point that the judgement has clarified the meaning of the settlement principle of rights and obligations and the system of ex post request for correction, and the Supreme Court has declared his own ruling on filing ex post request for correction in period taxation items such as the corporate tax. Also the judgement may be assessed as significant in the respect that it has greatly broadened the scope of the protection of taxpayers rights.