Decisions

All

TITLE	Supreme Court Decision 2007Du21587 Decided February 24, 2011 [Revocation of Disposition to Impose Corporate Tax, Etc.] [full Text]
Summary
[1] Method of calculating income from overseas sources when determining credit limits for foreign-paid corporate tax [2] Where the U.S. branch office of the Korean broadcasting company Gap paid corporate taxes to U.S. tax authorities for income gained within the U.S. through sales of broadcast programs received from the main office of Gap), the case holding that the court below's judgment was erroneous in including the royalties paid for the broadcast programs within Gap's total loss in the amount that the U.S. branch office would have paid to Gap as if the U.S. branch office was an independent entity, based on Article 8 (2) of the Convention between the Republic of Korea and the United States of America for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income and the Encouragement of International Trade and Investment [3] When the Korean broadcasting company Gap incurred labor costs in the process of bidding to acquire satellite broadcasting rights, but failed to win these rights, the case affirming the judgment below that such labor costs must be seen as deductible expenses, not asset acquisition amounts of intangible fixed assets, and must be accordingly included in total loss [4] The meaning of ""person being provided services"" and the standards to determine such a person under Article 16 (1) of the former Value-Added Tax Act [5] Where Eul arts center provided art-related services for a broadcast program produced by Byeong production company upon commission by the Korean broadcast company Gap and in accordance with a contract signed between Gap and Eul for the provision of art-related services, the case affirming the judgment below that, because the person being provided services was party to a contract to provide such services, the tax invoice issued by Eul cannot be seen as representing false facts in regard to shared art costs provided by Eul to Gap

TITLE

Supreme Court Decision 2007Du21587 Decided February 24, 2011 [Revocation of Disposition to Impose Corporate Tax, Etc.] [full Text]

Summary

[1] Method of calculating income from overseas sources when determining credit limits for foreign-paid corporate tax [2] Where the U.S. branch office of the Korean broadcasting company Gap paid corporate taxes to U.S. tax authorities for income gained within the U.S. through sales of broadcast programs received from the main office of Gap), the case holding that the court below's judgment was erroneous in including the royalties paid for the broadcast programs within Gap's total loss in the amount that the U.S. branch office would have paid to Gap as if the U.S. branch office was an independent entity, based on Article 8 (2) of the Convention between the Republic of Korea and the United States of America for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income and the Encouragement of International Trade and Investment [3] When the Korean broadcasting company Gap incurred labor costs in the process of bidding to acquire satellite broadcasting rights, but failed to win these rights, the case affirming the judgment below that such labor costs must be seen as deductible expenses, not asset acquisition amounts of intangible fixed assets, and must be accordingly included in total loss [4] The meaning of ""person being provided services"" and the standards to determine such a person under Article 16 (1) of the former Value-Added Tax Act [5] Where Eul arts center provided art-related services for a broadcast program produced by Byeong production company upon commission by the Korean broadcast company Gap and in accordance with a contract signed between Gap and Eul for the provision of art-related services, the case affirming the judgment below that, because the person being provided services was party to a contract to provide such services, the tax invoice issued by Eul cannot be seen as representing false facts in regard to shared art costs provided by Eul to Gap

Prev	Supreme Court Decision 2008Do7724 Decided March 10, 2011[Violation of the Immigration Control Act]
Next	Supreme Court Decision 2010Do15724 Decided February 24, 2011[Violation of the Foreign Trade Act]

list