beta
이 건 토지의 양도차익을 청구인이 주장하는 실지거래가액으로 결정할 수 있는지의 여부(기각)

조세심판원 조세심판 | 1991-12-19 | 국심1991서2300 | 양도

[Case Number]

National High Court 1991J 2300 ( December 20, 1991)

[Items]

Transfer

[Types of Decision]

Dismissal

[Summary of Decision]

Since it cannot be confirmed the actual transaction price, it is legitimate to impose tax on the standard market price.

【Disposition】

I dismiss the appeal.

【Reasoning】

1. Facts;

The claimant shall be a person who has an address in the OOOOOOOOOOO in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the claimant shall be a person who has an address in the OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, the 4/14 shares (the shares in inheritance) of the site located in Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereafter referred to as the "OOOOOOO" in this case) shall be inherited from the claimant's husband, and the remaining 10/14 shares (the shares in inheritance) shall be acquired from other co-inheritorss, 75.11.20, the claimant shall own the total shares (the shares in purchase) of the above land, and the other co-inheritors, other than the claim on December 14, 89.14 (the outstanding payment agreement in the verification contract) and the value of the land shall be KRW 90,000,000,0000 and the acquisition value of the land shall be KRW 18,154,67,167,67

The disposition agency determines the transfer margin of the land of this case as the standard market price on April 16, 91 because the above transaction value reported by the claimant is not reliable, and notifies the claimant of the transfer income tax of 30,50,420 and the same defense tax of 6,10,080 won.

On June 14, 91, the claimant appealed against the above disposition and filed an appeal for adjudication on September 19, 91.

2. The claimant's assertion;

The claimant transferred 90,00,000 won to non-OO and one other than the claim 89.12.14, and the transfer value is 90,00,000 won, which is the above actual transaction value, and the transfer value is 1,154,666 won, which is the standard market price as of January 1, 7, the date of acquisition, and the purchase share is 17,00,154,666 won, which is the actual transaction value, and the purchase share is 18,154,666 won, which is the actual transaction value. The claimant legitimately reported the purchase share as 17,00,000 won, which is 18,154,6666 won, even if it is confirmed based on the transfer contract, purchase share acquisition contract, etc. presented by the claimant that the above reported value is the actual transaction value, and it is argued that it is improper to determine the transfer value

3. Opinions of the Commissioner of the National Tax Service;

Article 23 (4) and Article 45 (1) 1 of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 90. 31, Dec. 31, 90) provide that the transfer margin shall be calculated based on the standard market price at the time of acquisition and transfer, in such cases as determined by the Presidential Decree, the transfer margin shall be calculated based on the actual transaction price, and one of the cases under Article 170 (4) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that the transfer margin may be confirmed based on the documentary evidence submitted by the transferor at the time of the transfer

The claimant asserts that the actual transaction price at the time of the transfer of the land is KRW 90,00,00,000. However, this amount is only 166,141,640 won which is the standard market price at the time of the transfer, and it is merely 24.07% of the 373,800,000,000 won which is the standard market price at the time of the transfer. Considering the fact that the standard market price or the publicly notified market price at the National Tax Service is in short of the market price at the time of the transaction of the land, the above amount is extremely exceptional transaction that the claimant is the actual transaction price at the time of the transfer. Therefore, the claimant is responsible for factual proof of this case transaction. Since the claimant does not present objective certificates of proof, such as financial data on the actual sale price, the price of the land at issue, and the price of the land at issue, it is argued that the claim seeking disposition is unjustifiable.

4. Issues

The issue of this case is whether the claimant can determine the transfer margin of this case's land as the actual transaction price asserted by the claimant.

5. Hearing and determination

First of all, examining the relevant laws enforced at the time of transfer of the land (89.14)

Articles 23(4) and 45(1)1 of the Income Tax Act provide that, in principle, the transfer value and acquisition value which form the basis for the calculation of gains on transfer shall be based on the standard market price at the time of transfer and acquisition of transferred assets: Provided, That in cases prescribed by the Presidential Decree, it shall be based on the actual transaction value of the assets, and Article 170(4)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that "where the transferr can confirm the actual transaction value at the time of the transfer and acquisition by the documentary evidence submitted by the transferor at the time of the return on the profit on the transfer or the final return on the tax base" shall be one of the cases where the transfer and acquisition value can be acknowledged based on the actual transaction value. According to the main provision of Article 170(1)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, where one of the transfer or acquisition value is determined based on the actual transaction value, the other

In full view of the above provisions, in a transaction between individuals, the transferor can determine the transfer margin as the actual transaction price only in the case of confirmation of both the acquisition and the actual transaction price at the time of transfer by the documentary evidence submitted by the transferor at the time of the legitimate return

Accordingly, this paper examines whether the actual transaction price at the time of acquisition and transfer of the land of this case is confirmed, and the claimant asserts that the land of this case was transferred at KRW 90,00,000,000, and the evidence presents a copy of the transfer contract and the confirmation document of the opposite contractual party; however, the claimant presented

While it is difficult to collect the above data because they can be prepared differently from the facts, in the case of the land of this case, the National Tax Service's standard market price of 166,141,640 won at the time of transfer (89.12.14) and the officially announced price of 90.1.1, which is 17 days after the date of the above transfer, reaches 373,80,000 won. In general, in light of the fact that the National Tax Service's standard market price is set at a considerably lower level than the market price, it is difficult to accept the assertion that the land of this case was transferred to the National Tax Service's 54.17% at the base price of the National Tax Service, and 90,000,000 won, which is 24.07% of the officially announced price, unless there is any other counter-proof evidence.

Therefore, in this case, the transfer value of the land at least is unclear among the acquisition and transfer value. Thus, it is legitimate to determine the transfer value of the land at the standard market price according to the provisions of Article 170(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act without examining further whether the actual transaction value at the time of acquisition is confirmed. Therefore, the claimant's assertion that this case's disposal is unfair is groundless.

6. Conclusion

This case's request for a trial is recognized as groundless as a result of the review, so it is decided as ordered in accordance with Articles 81 and 65(1)2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes.