2015년 조세법 중요 판례

This article aims to review the contents and meanings of some important tax decisions which were decided in the Supreme Court in 2015. Some important tax decisions are as follows: Firstly, 2014du12062 decided on February 26, 2015: this decision ruled that the second redundant tax audit in relation to the remaining issues in the same tax period and the same tax item after the first tax audit was done in relation to a particular tax period and a particular tax item is illegal. The decision respects due process of law in the realm of tax audit, Secondly, 2014du5514 decided on July 16, 2015: this decision ruled that tax authority can not impose income tax on the bribe amount where the bribe amount was confiscated by prosecution as an additional collection money. Since the tax authority can not impose tax where is no ability to pay, this decision is reasonable. Thirdly, 2012du7608 decided on January 15, 2015: this decision ruled that a rebate paid by pharmaceutical companies to pharmacies according to sales figure can not be included in the deductible expenses because it contradicts to the public order. The decision leaves for doubts. Expanding the application of tax law by keeping such costs occurred in the course of trade or business from being included in deductible expenses is far beyond the nature of tax, I think. Fourth, 2013du19615 decided on October 15, 2015: this decision ruled that shareholder of a profit corporation is not liable to a gift tax when the related parties donate properties to the corporation. The decision clarifies the relationship between Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax article 2, paragraph 3 and individual calculation articles of the law and restricts the arbitrary application of unlimited inclusive tax system of gift tax. This decision respects the legal stability of taxpayers and ensures the trust to legal system. Sixth, 2013du23195 decided on June 24, 2015: this decision viewed that the donated property amount whose period of exclusion for tax imposition has expired can not be added to the after donated property amount. This decision interprets tax law in harmony with constitution law and emphasizes legal stability.