RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색
다국어 입력

http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

예시)
  • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
  • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
닫기
    인기검색어 순위 펼치기

    RISS 인기검색어

      KCI등재

      공법분야 투고논문 : 법인의 실질적 경영자의 횡령금에 대한 소득세 과세 = Korean Taxation on Misappropriation of Corporate Funds by a De Facto Manager

      한글로보기
      • 내보내기
      • 내책장담기
      • 공유하기
      • 오류접수

      부가정보

      다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract) kakao i 다국어 번역

      Korean courts have taken the position that misappropriation of corporate funds by a corporate de facto manager of a Korean corporation (the “Misappropriation”) results in outflows of income, none of which are expected to return to the corporation in the future. Under Korean tax law, such Misappropriation is not treated as a deductible expense although it effectively decreases the corporation`s assets from a financial reporting standpoint. With respect to any taxable income arising from such difference between book and tax treatment, so-called “disposition of income” process (the “Process”) would determine the appropriate income category thereof (which mainly depends on whether paid to the shareholders as dividends or re-invested in the corporation) for Korean corporate income tax purposes. In the past, the Korean Constitutional Court had ruled that the Process is unconstitutional, and it was followed by a judicial precedent allowing the imposition of Korean corporate income tax on the Misappropriation without such Process. It should be noted however that this precedent should be viewed as a transitional measure inevitably reflecting the Constitutional Court`s ruling of unconstitutionality. Moreover, the current Korean tax system has been significantly changed after a series of amendments to the relevant corporate tax laws and regulations on such issue, and thus should not conflict with the precedent as the Process is currently deemed constitutional. Meanwhile, in the case when a de facto manager (i.e., a Korean resident) of a foreign corporation misappropriates only Korean-source income, thereby subject to the Process, it is possible under Korea tax law that he may not be able to recognize such income as earned income because the income is not actually attributable to his performance. By contrast, he may be allowed to recognize earned income if only non-Korean source income is misappropriated. Overall, it would be unreasonable to determine the appropriate income category of the misappropriated fund solely based on the source of income. Moreover, there may be an issue as to whether the place of effective management exists in Korea for Korean tax purposes, making it more difficult to distinguish between foreign and domestic entities. In conclusion, regardless of whether it is a domestic or foreign corporation, the Misappropriation should be subject to Korean corporate income tax except to the extent that the Process applies.
      번역하기

      Korean courts have taken the position that misappropriation of corporate funds by a corporate de facto manager of a Korean corporation (the “Misappropriation”) results in outflows of income, none of which are expected to return to the corporation ...

      Korean courts have taken the position that misappropriation of corporate funds by a corporate de facto manager of a Korean corporation (the “Misappropriation”) results in outflows of income, none of which are expected to return to the corporation in the future. Under Korean tax law, such Misappropriation is not treated as a deductible expense although it effectively decreases the corporation`s assets from a financial reporting standpoint. With respect to any taxable income arising from such difference between book and tax treatment, so-called “disposition of income” process (the “Process”) would determine the appropriate income category thereof (which mainly depends on whether paid to the shareholders as dividends or re-invested in the corporation) for Korean corporate income tax purposes. In the past, the Korean Constitutional Court had ruled that the Process is unconstitutional, and it was followed by a judicial precedent allowing the imposition of Korean corporate income tax on the Misappropriation without such Process. It should be noted however that this precedent should be viewed as a transitional measure inevitably reflecting the Constitutional Court`s ruling of unconstitutionality. Moreover, the current Korean tax system has been significantly changed after a series of amendments to the relevant corporate tax laws and regulations on such issue, and thus should not conflict with the precedent as the Process is currently deemed constitutional. Meanwhile, in the case when a de facto manager (i.e., a Korean resident) of a foreign corporation misappropriates only Korean-source income, thereby subject to the Process, it is possible under Korea tax law that he may not be able to recognize such income as earned income because the income is not actually attributable to his performance. By contrast, he may be allowed to recognize earned income if only non-Korean source income is misappropriated. Overall, it would be unreasonable to determine the appropriate income category of the misappropriated fund solely based on the source of income. Moreover, there may be an issue as to whether the place of effective management exists in Korea for Korean tax purposes, making it more difficult to distinguish between foreign and domestic entities. In conclusion, regardless of whether it is a domestic or foreign corporation, the Misappropriation should be subject to Korean corporate income tax except to the extent that the Process applies.

      더보기

      동일학술지(권/호) 다른 논문

      분석정보

      View

      상세정보조회

      0

      Usage

      원문다운로드

      0

      대출신청

      0

      복사신청

      0

      EDDS신청

      0

      동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

      더보기

      주제

      연도별 연구동향

      연도별 활용동향

      연관논문

      연구자 네트워크맵

      공동연구자 (7)

      유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

      이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

      나만을 위한 추천자료

      해외이동버튼