2024년 소비 및 재산세제 판례 회고

In 2024, several important decisions related to value-added tax, inheritance and gift tax were issued. Among them, a total of seven decisions were selected for review, considering the significance of the legal principles and their value as precedents. First of all, regarding VAT, there have generally been many cases where previously declared legal principles have been applied to new factual circumstances. The Supreme Court ruling on December 26, 2024, in case numbers 2022du49984 and 49941(consolidated), which addressed whether the VAT applies to penalties for mobile phone device contracts, applied the existing legal principle that money in the form of a penalty is included in the taxable supply value if its substance is related to a supply and compensation relationship. However, it concluded that even in the same supply transaction based on the same contract between the same parties, the taxability may vary depending on the distribution channels that exist at the front end and the interrelationship of the related contracts. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court ruling on April 12, 2024, in case numbers 2023Du58701, regarding the applicability of the zero-rated tax rate for telecommunications services provided to U.S. military personnel in South Korea, clarified that the criteria for determining non-resident status under the VAT Act should follow the standards set by the Income Tax Act. In particular, It reaffirmed the previous legal principle that regulations related to zero-rate VAT should be interpreted strictly. This case, being a rare instance where the Status of Forces Agreement with the U.S. military affects taxation disposition, seems likely to serve as a guideline for future tax practices. Regarding inheritance and gift tax, a number of new and important legal principles have been sentenced, with many rulings emphasizing the legal stability and predictability for taxpayers based on the principle of tax law. First, the Supreme Court rulings on April 12, 2024, in case numbers 2020Du53224, April 16, 2024, in case numbers 2021Du44951, and April 12, 2024, in case numbers 2022Du62208, which dealt with the newly established regulation in the former Inheritance and Gift Tax Act Article 4, Paragraph 1, Item 6, aimed at implementing complete inclusiveness, reaffirmed the previous legal principle that if taxation on gift tax exceeds the limits derived from the objective wording of the individual example regulations, such taxation cannot be permitted even under the comprehensive gift regulations. Unless additional legislation is supplemented, the settlement of full comprehensive gift tax seems to be a long way off. Next, the Supreme Court ruling on April 12, 2024, in case numbers 2020Du54265 regarding the requirements for allowing retroactive (re)valuation for verification purposes under the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act, partially supplemented the previous precedent that stated, the property valuation methods under the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act are illustrative, and the retroactive valuation value can also be the market price, thereby limiting the retroactive (re)valuation by the tax authorities. As the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on some of the types of retroactive valuations, it seems necessary to have extensive discussions and establish legal principles regarding the extent to which retroactive valuations by the tax authorities may be permitted in the future. The Supreme Court ruling on September 13, 2024, in case number 2021Du54293, which addressed the interpretation of the confiscation regulations for the contributed property of public interest corporations, is also a decision that strictly interprets the confiscation regulations based on the principle of tax law. While the intent of the relevant laws must be sufficiently considered, it is difficult to allow for unlimited taxation or to apply the confiscation regulations excessively beyond the scope prescribed by law. On the other hand, the Supreme Court ruling on March 12, 2024, in case number 2022du32931, in which the addition of prior gifted property was at issue in determining the taxability of gift tax on excess dividends, it was first stated that the amount of gift tax on excess dividends under Article 41-2, Paragraph 3 means the gift tax amount calculated by applying the re-gift addition rule under Article 47, Paragraph 2 within 10 years. This decision provides a standard for the tax authorities' taxation practices and lower court judgments in the future. Lastly, the Supreme Court ruling on September 12, 2024, in case number 2022du64143, on the limitation of inheritance tax liability in the case of a non-resident decedent, faithfully embodies the intent of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act, which states that a non-resident decedent is liable for inheritance tax only on domestic inheritance. It is not reasonable for a person to be liable for a large amount of inheritance tax that he would not have been liable for if he did not have a domestic inheritance in the first place just because he has a small amount of domestic inheritance. Based on last year's decisions, I sincerely hope that important and valuable legal principles that can serve as a compass for tax law interpretation will continue to be declared in future decisions.