신주발행형 우리사주매수선택권 행사차액의 손금산입 여부 — 대법원 2023. 10. 12. 선고 2023두45736 판결을 중심으로 — (Whether or not the difference in exercise of employee stock options is included in deductible expenses — Focusing on the Supreme Court Decision 2023du45736 decided on October 12, 2023 —)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 충북대학교 법학연구소
· 수록지 정보 : 법학연구 / 35권 / 1호 / 159 ~ 180페이지
· 저자명 : 권준경

초록

In this case, the issue is whether the gain from exercising employee stock options, which is a capital transaction, can be included as a deductible. In the first trial, it does not amount to a decrease in net assets, and the regulations introduced to allow it to be included as a deductible are not. The plaintiff's claim was dismissed as it was deemed to be a creative regulation for policy purposes, but the appellate court ruled that in this case, which is similar to stock options, it is a confirmatory provision when looking at the regulations that have already been introduced, and that the interpretation of deductibles is subject to existing regulations. Considering the changes in interpretation and other factors, the first trial ruling was canceled as it was deemed possible to include deductibles. The Supreme Court overturned and remanded the lower court on the grounds that, as in the first trial, the tax law must be interpreted strictly as written in the law, that the exercise difference in this case did not reduce net assets, which is a requirement for recognition of deductibles, and that it was reasonable to view the newly introduced regulations as original regulations.
In the study, we reviewed the requirements for inclusion of deductibles in Article 19 of the Corporate Tax Act and looked into whether capital transactions could be considered as deductibles in interpretation, focusing on the nature of employee stock options and their similarity to stock options. As a result, we confirm that it is necessary to strictly interpret the decrease in net assets, which is a requirement for deductibles in the Corporate Tax Act, according to the text of the law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

영어초록

In this case, the issue is whether the gain from exercising employee stock options, which is a capital transaction, can be included as a deductible. In the first trial, it does not amount to a decrease in net assets, and the regulations introduced to allow it to be included as a deductible are not. The plaintiff's claim was dismissed as it was deemed to be a creative regulation for policy purposes, but the appellate court ruled that in this case, which is similar to stock options, it is a confirmatory provision when looking at the regulations that have already been introduced, and that the interpretation of deductibles is subject to existing regulations. Considering the changes in interpretation and other factors, the first trial ruling was canceled as it was deemed possible to include deductibles. The Supreme Court overturned and remanded the lower court on the grounds that, as in the first trial, the tax law must be interpreted strictly as written in the law, that the exercise difference in this case did not reduce net assets, which is a requirement for recognition of deductibles, and that it was reasonable to view the newly introduced regulations as original regulations.
In the study, we reviewed the requirements for inclusion of deductibles in Article 19 of the Corporate Tax Act and looked into whether capital transactions could be considered as deductibles in interpretation, focusing on the nature of employee stock options and their similarity to stock options. As a result, we confirm that it is necessary to strictly interpret the decrease in net assets, which is a requirement for deductibles in the Corporate Tax Act, according to the text of the law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

참고자료

· 없음