beta
부채변제로 보아 증여세를 과세한 처분의 당부(취소)

조세심판원 조세심판 | 2004-04-21 | 국심2003구3833 | 상증

[Case Number]

National High Court Decision 2003Gu383, 204.22

[Items]

Donations

[Types of Decision]

Revocation

[Summary of Decision]

The imposition of gift tax is unreasonable on the grounds that the amount withdrawn within the short period (one month) and the amount claimed to have been appropriated for the repayment of debts is similar to the withdrawn amount.

[Related Acts]

Article 31 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (Scope of Gifted Property)

【Determination following Decision】

OOOOOOO

【Disposition】

The imposition of the gift tax of 34,916,780 won on the claimant on June 1, 2003 by the head of the OO head of the tax office shall be revoked.

【Reasoning】

1. Summary of disposition;

The claimant is a person living at the same address as the applicant's resident registration and who is living at the same address as the applicant's deposit account (OOOOOOO) in the applicant's bank account (OOOOOOOOOO).

On September 14, 1999, the disposition agency transferred 929 square meters and 1,379 square meters of the building site of OOOOOO and 1,379 square meters of the building (hereinafter referred to as "transfer real estate"), and the delinquent taxpayer conducted an investigation of profit-making property tracking and confirmed that the amount at issue out of the transfer price of the real estate was deposited in the applicant's deposit account by the claimant, and notified the claimant of KRW 34,916,780 of the gift tax on June 1, 2003 by deeming that the claimant was donated the amount at issue by OO.

On August 5, 2003, the claimant raised an appeal on December 18, 2003.

2. Opinions of the claimant and disposition agency;

A. The claimant's assertion

The key amount is that the claimant has received from others in the past the return of the loan to the leastO and actually received a donation for the repayment of the debt, so this case's disposition is unfair.

(b) Opinions of disposition agencies;

Although the claimant asserts that the amount of the issue is collected by the claimant, the disposition imposing the gift tax is justifiable on the claimant by deeming that the OO was donated to the claimant, since the claimant did not present objective evidence proving it.

3. Hearing and determination

A. Key issue

It is reasonable to judge whether the amount deposited in the petitioner's deposit account from the petitioner can be seen as a donation from the petitioner.

B. Relevant statutes

The relevant laws and regulations at the time this case’s taxation requirement is established are as follows:

Article 31 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (Scope of Gifted Property)

(1) The donated property pursuant to the provisions of Article 2 shall include all articles having economic value that can be liquidated in money as property belonging to the donee and all de facto or de facto rights having property value.

C. Hearing and determination

(1) Examining the circumstances leading up to this case’s disposal, the fact that the key amount (184,295,315 won) out of the transfer proceeds of the transferred real estate was deposited in the applicant’s deposit account on September 15, 1999 and November 22, 1999, the fact that the claimant was given the gift tax on the ground that the claimant was given the donation of the key amount, and that the gift tax was imposed on the claimant based on this case’s review data presented by the disposition authority.

(2) Examining the current status of the entry and withdrawal of the applicant's deposit account as at the time of the applicant's deposit account confirmed by the disposition agency, the amount of 9 million won deposited on September 15, 199.

(3) The claimant asserts that the amount of the issue is the amount that the claimant has previously procured from others and repaid to the leastO for the repayment of the debt, and the total amount of the transferred real estate that the leastO has to pay, but the claimant did not present evidence to prove it. However, according to the claimant's claim for the review of the legality of taxation at the disposition agency, the claimant asserts that the amount of the issue is used to counter-inform the debt, such as 41 million won of the total amount of the real estate transferred by the leastO, 5.5 million won of the rightO, 20 million won of KimO, 20 million won of the other OO, and 20 million won of the other OO and 20 million won of the above argument, while the disposition agency intended to verify the facts of the other party to the claim, it was argued that

(4) Based on these facts, this paper examines whether the leastO would be deemed to have donated to the claimant.

The claimant is registered as a person living in the same address as the MaximumO on the resident registration, and the disposition agency presumed the relationship as internal relations. As a result of the investigation by the disposition agency about the use of 370 million won of the transfer price of the transferred real estate, it is recognized that the 90 million won out of the amount received as the intermediate payment of the transferred real estate was deposited in the claimant's account on September 15, 1999 and that the 94,295,315 won out of the amount received as the remainder of the transferred real estate was deposited in the claimant's account on November 22, 1999.

As long as the money reverted to a person who is recognized as a donor by the tax authority is revealed to have been deposited in a deposit account in the taxpayer’s name, such deposit is presumed to have been donated to the taxpayer, and there are special circumstances, such as that the deposit in the taxpayer’s name was made for other purpose than the donation, the burden of proving such deposit shall be the taxpayer (the same purport, Supreme Court Decision 99Du4082, Nov. 13, 20

However, in light of the fact that 143,580,000 won out of the issue amount was deposited within a short period (one month) after deposit, and that it was confirmed by the claimant's deposit account entry details, it cannot be ruled out that it was paid to a third party via the claimant's deposit account, as alleged by the claimant, not merely for the purpose of donation, but for the claimant's deposit account. Since the claimant's claim that the deposit was appropriated for the repayment of the deposit and the debt amount is at a level similar to the above deposit amount, it is necessary to verify the authenticity of the claim, it is not confirmed by the disposition agency, but most of the issues amount was withdrawn before the disposition (3 years and six months prior to the disposition) is confirmed, and it is not clear whether the issue amount was true, and if the claimant and the lastO was actually in a marital relationship, it is judged that the least O is not reasonable to impose gift tax on the claimant on the basis of the fact that the amount was deposited in the claimant's deposit account.

4. Conclusion

This case's request for a trial is with merit as a result of the hearing, so it is decided as ordered in accordance with Articles 81 and 65(1)3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes.