2016년 조세법 중요 판례

Abstract : This article reviews some of the Supreme Court decisions rendered in 2016, which the author has selected taking their theoretical or practical importance into consideration. Those decisions are discussed, in four different sections according to their relevance, which are (i) tax procedures, (ii) income tax, (iii) VAT and (iv) international taxation as follows: (i) tax procedures: the decision on how an income recipient can dispute the so-called “notice of deficiency” made to the withholding agent, and the decision on whether a tax assessment that levies more tax after the so-called “order (by an administrative appeal body) for re-audit” is in violation of the relevant law on tax procedures are reviewed in this section; (ii) income tax: the decision on the character of income that arises from a partner’s withdrawal from the partnership, and the decision on when “other income” under Korean income tax law is recognized in case where the debtor transferred to the creditor his own claim on a third party in satisfaction of his debt are reviewed in this section, and the author, in particular, points out that the general theory on which the Supreme Court hinged on in the latter decision contained some serious flaw in terms of the basic income tax theory; (iii) VAT: in this section, how to treat for VAT purposes the so-called “customer subsidy,” “discount coupon” or “accumulated point,” all of which are intented to allow consumers to pay less money in purchasing goods or service, is considered in connection with a series of decisions rendered in 2016, and it is submitted that the Supreme Court basically opined that VAT should be calculated only on the amount of money actually paid by customers, excluding the value of the “subsidy,” “coupon” or “point,” which the author believes is faithfully in accordance with the basic logic of VAT; and, (iv) international taxation: this section reviews the decision which, for the first time, defined the term “place of effective management” under the Korean Corporate Income Tax Act, and ascertains that the foregoing definition is in line with the interpretation presented in the OECD Commentaries on the Model Convention, as was clearly intended by the legislature.