2016? ???? ?? (A Review on Supreme Court¡¯s 2016 Tax Decisions)

2016?? ????? ??? ?? ?? ? ??? ? ??? ??? ??.
??, ??? 2016. 4. 15. ?? 2015?52326 ???, ??????? ?? ?????? ????? ???????? ??? ???? ??? ? ???? ????? ????? ?????. ????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ????, ??? ?? ??? ???? ??? ????.
??, ??? 2016. 7. 14. ?? 2014?45246 ???, ???? ???? ? ??? ????? ???????? ??? ??? ??? ???? ??? ????? ??? ? ????? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ??? ? ??? ?????. ???? ?? ???? ???????? ???? ????? ???? ???? ??? ?? ????? ????? ??? ? ?? ????? ??? ????? ??? ? ?? ????.
??, ??? 2016. 8. 18. ?? 2014?10981 ???, ??? ??? ??????? ??? ??? ??? ????? ??????? ??? ? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ??? ????? ???, ????? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ?? ?????? ??? ?? ??? ?????. ????? ??? ? ??? ????? ?? ????? ????? ????? ????? ? ???? ??? ??? ????.
??, ??? 2016. 1. 14. ?? 2013?17534 ???, ??? ??? ??? ????? ???? ??? ????? ????? ????? ???? ??? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???? ????, ?? ??? ??? ????? ???? ??? ??? ? ??? ?????. ? ???? ??? ?????, ??? ???? ????? ???? ????? ???? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ????? ??? ? ??.
???, ??? 2016. 6. 10. ?? 2015?60341 ???, ?????? ?? ?? ????? ???? ????? ???? ????? ?????. ?????? ? ?????? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ???? ??? ??? ?? ???? ????? ??? ????.
???, ??? 2016. 8. 26. ?? 2015?58959 ????? ???, ?????? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ???? ????, ????? ?? ??? ?? ??? ????? ????? ?????. ???????? ???? ???? ¡®??? ??? ?? ?¡¯?? ??? ¡®????¡¯? ???? ????? 2? ??? ????? ????? ????? ?? ?? ??????? ???? ??? ?? ??? ????? ??? ????? ??? ????.
???, ??? 2016. 7. 14. ?? 2014?43516 ???, ? ??? ? ???? ?4? ?3??? ?? ¡®???? ???? ??? ??? ??? ??? ?¡¯? ????? ???? ??? ???????? ??? ??? ????? ????? ?????. ?? ????? ???? ? ?? ??? ???? ???? ???(ŸoÙYÁ¦) ??? ???? ?? ?? ??? ????? ?? ??? ????? ??? ?? ??? ??? ?? ?? ??? ?? ????? ??? ?? ??? ??. ???, ???? ??? ???? ??? ??? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ?? ??? ????? ??? ????? ??? ???? ???? ???. ??? ??? ????.
???, ??? 2016. 1. 14. ?? 2014?8896 ??? ????? ????? ???? ??? ¡®??? ????¡¯? ?? ? ?? ??? ??? ???? ??? ?????. OECD ??????? ???? ???? ¡®??? ????¡¯? ??? ? ????? ???? ?????? ??? ??? ?? ????.

This article aims to review the contents and meanings of some important tax decisions which were decided in the Supreme Court in 2016. Some important tax decisions are as follows: First, 2015du52326 decided on April 15, 2016: this decision ruled that the taxation imposed on taxpayers without granting the opportunity of judgment on propriety before tax levying by not giving advance notice of tax assessment was unlawful. It is a reasonable judgment consistent with the recent case law as a judgment that places great importance on due process of tax investigation.
Second, 2014du45246 decided on July 14, 2016: this decision ruled that a person liable for tax payment is entitled to claim of reassessment about not only the tax amount actually he paid, but also the tax amount which he filed additionally after the due date of filing return. This is a judgment that can be positively evaluated in that it makes it possible to resolve the dispute more practically and efficiently by enabling the person liable for tax payment who is the ultimate taxpayer.
Third, 2014du10981 decided on August 18, 2016: this decision ruled that when a forced-sale by auction procedure is invalid because the registration of the debtor's name on the auction real estate on which the forced auction procedure is based is null and void, the capital gains tax is not taxable because the debtor can not recognize the capital gain equivalent to the sale proceeds. This is a reasonable judgment in that the sale proceeds will be returned to the buyer(the meritor) of the auction procedure.
Fourth, 2013du17534 decided on January 14, 2016: this decision ruled that uncollectable accounts of indemnity receivables can not be included in the deduction of expenses when a corporation's debt guarantee to secure the payment of the transaction price related to the business does not fall under the provisions of the Corporate Income Tax Law Enforcement Decree. Although it is a faithful interpretation of the wording of the Enforcement Decree, it is a judgment that does not correspond to the economic reality in that not allowing for the deduction of the loss even for the inevitable debt guarantee in the business.
Fifth, 2015du60341 decided on June 10, 2016: this decision ruled that the penalty on non-receipt of proof of evidence is also applied to transactions with business taxpayers who have not registered with the business. The conclusion of the ruling is reasonable considering the equitable relationship between the fact that the taxpayer is charged with the penalty on non-receipt of proof of evidence when he receives a tax invoice that is not true from the business taxpayers who registered the business.
Sixth, 2015du58959 decided on August 26, 2016: this en-banc decision ruled that even if the point system is operated by post-settlement method between business operators, the portion of the amount deducted by the points is deemed to be the discount from tax base. Since the points operated by the post-settlement method are ¡®monetary value¡¯, they are not included in the ¡®discount from tax base¡¯, so they are included in the supply price, which is the tax base of the second transaction. I oppose the conclusion of the ruling in the sense that it is not in conformity with the principle of calculating the supply value of the VAT Act.
Seventh, 2014du43516 decided on July 14, 2016: this decision ruled that the time of judgment whether or not the taxpayer is recognized as having no ability to pay the gift tax under the Article 4, Paragraph 3 of the Old Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax is not the time of enforcement such as the imposition of the tax authorities, but the time of realization of the gift tax tax liability. If it is judged that the taxpayer is not possible to pay the gift tax based on the time of enforcement such as the imposition of the tax authorities, the taxpayers' liability may be determined depending on the arbitration of the tax authorities. In that sense, this decision may be understood. However, the conclusion of the ruling does not conform to the economic reality in that it is too harsh to require the taxpayer to pay the gift tax even if the donee is not actually granted the gift and is unable to pay the gift tax. Legislative improvement is needed.
Eighth, 2014du8896 decided on January 14, 2016: this decision presented specific criteria for the meaning and judgment method of ¡®place of effective management¡¯ as a criterion for distinguishing between domestic and foreign corporations. It is a meaningful decision in that it refers the first time to the meaning of ¡®place of effective management¡¯ and its judgment criteria by referring to commentaries on the articles of the OECD model tax convention.