All
| TITLE | Supreme Court Decision 2018Du39621 Decided July 28, 2022 【Revocation of the Disposition Imposing Corporate Tax, etc.】 [full Text] |
|---|---|
| Summary | |
| 【Main Issues and Holdings】 [1] In the case where: (a) Incorporated Company A, engaged in a credit card business pursuant to the Specialized Credit Finance Business Act, paid the issuer’s contribution fee and the issuer’s daily contribution fee to Company B, a U.S.-based company established in accordance with the U.S. law but not having a place of business in the Republic of Korea under the Corporate Tax Act, in relation to the use of a credit card affixed with the trademark of Company B; and (b) the commissioner of the competent tax office viewed that the aforesaid contribution fees constituted remuneration for the use of a trademark, which was stipulated as domestic source royalty income under Article 93 Subparag. 9 Item (a) of the former Corporate Tax Act and, based on this understanding, imposed a penalty tax for failure to submit a written payment statement in accordance with Article 76(7) of the former Corporate Tax Act, the case holding that the issuer’s contribution fee constitutes royalty income and the issuer’s daily contribution fee constitutes business income in its entirety [2] Standards for determining whether work that provides a service constitutes a value-added taxable transaction In a case where a cooperative act on the part of a person who is provided with a service is necessary for the aforesaid service to be provided, whether a place where the cooperative act took place ought to be considered as well (affirmative) | |
