TITLE	Supreme Court Decision 2014Du44342 Decided May 11, 2018¡¼Revocation of Disposition Imposing Corporate Tax¡½ [full Text]
Summary
[1] In cases where a corporation (i) directly used an acquired real estate for the business indicated in the corporate registry following the lapse of the grace period and/or (ii) transferred a real estate that continuously had not been used for business even after the lapse of the grace period, scope of ¡°the period that is deemed irrelevant to business¡± as prescribed under Article 26(9)1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act [2] Whether a divided corporation¡¯s transfer of asset to a newly established corporation by means of succession due to a split-off constitutes ¡°asset transfer¡± under the Corporate Tax Act (affirmative) [3] If a corporation, whose main business is real estate sales, undergoes a transfer of land, whether the transfer itself may be deemed as having been directly used for said corporation¡¯s business (affirmative) Whether such case may be deemed otherwise by citing Article 26(3)2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act, which is merely part of the criteria for the exclusion of assets irrelevant to business (negative) [4] In a case where a corporation, whose main business is real estate sales, transferred an acquired real estate due to a split-off, etc. following the lapse of the grace period, whether it constitutes ¡°transfer of a real estate that was not used for business¡± as prescribed under Article 26(9)1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act (negative) In accordance with Article 26(9)1 main text of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act, whether only the period from the date after the lapse of the grace period to the date prior to the direct use via transfer falls under the period that is irrelevant to business (affirmative)

Prev	Supreme Court Decision 2018Do618 Decided May 11, 2018 ¡¼Violation of the Military Service Act¡½
Next	Supreme Court Decision 2017Da288115 Decided April 26, 2018¡¼Service Fee¡½