손익의 확정 및 귀속시기에 관한 몇 가지 문제에 대한 검토

Issues regarding confirmation of revenues and expenses and their imputed timing involve various kinds of problems, such as the structure of periodic taxation of income tax and corporate tax, financial accounting principles, resolution of disputes concerning civil law relationship etc, and therefore requires a multilateral study. First, the traditional common view and court decisions have understood the imputed timing of revenues and expenses as ‘doctrine of confirmation of the rights and obligations' or ‘doctrine of confirmation of rights' especially for the imputation of revenue, while unveiling its limit of being unable to explain illegal income and so on. This article tries to present ‘confirmation of revenues and expenses' as basic standard for the imputed timing of revenues and expenses, and to understand both confirmation of the rights and obtaining of control and domination as its component factors, and to align more systematically complete confirmation of the rights, and full control and domination, and the intermediary cases between the two, and to give tax consequences appropriate for them. Secondly, under current tax law, in order to recognize confirmation of revenue and expense it is needed that the substantial requirements of rights are sufficed, and the existence and scope of the rights are resolved in litigation. However, recognizing revenues not at the point of time of the fulfillment of the substantial requirements which is the event for the realization of incremental value of assets, but at the point of time of the resolution of the rights in litigation, is subjecting taxpayers to different tax law and rate for a contingent cause, and is unreasonable. Therefore confirming the substantial elements of rights needs to function only to be the prerequisite for the recognition of revenue for tax purposes, thus having the imputed timing of revenue be subject to the time when the substantial requirements are fulfilled. Thirdly, with regard to the decision of the supreme court that if a claim, the cause of income, has become recoverable an income tax upon that is not admissible, there has been a view to analyse that decision as having found the case as the absence of the confirmation of rights, but the doctrine in the decision needs only to be understood as a cause of request for Ex Post rectification due to the extinction of the taxing right, and not to be discussed with regard to the issue of the confirmation of the right. Fourthly, under the interpretation of current tax law, An expense is imputed to the taxable period when the expense is confirmed irregardless of which taxable period the revenue corresponding the expense is imputed. However this breaks the matching principle, and distorts the periodic amount of revenue and expense, and thus nees to revisited for legislative amendment. The courts need to exercise flexibility in interpreting tax laws so that the period in which the expense is confirmed is consistent with the period to which the corresponding revenue is imputed.