[양도소득세부과처분취소][공2010하,2022]
[1] In imposing capital gains tax on the transfer of inherited property, the tax authority assessed the acquisition value of assets as a publicly assessed individual land price for the reason that it is difficult for the tax authority to assess the market price at the time of inheritance of assets. Whether the standard price and appraisal price to determine whether the amount of tax assessed exceeds the reasonable amount of tax in the event that the market price at the time of inheritance of assets is verified at the time of the closing of argument in
[2] The case affirming the judgment below holding that the market price at the time of inheritance of the mortgaged real estate shall be deemed as the acquisition price at the time of inheritance of the mortgaged real estate in calculating transfer income tax in cases where the mortgaged real estate, which was calculated proportionally at the market price as of the base date of appraisal of the jointly mortgaged real estate at the time of inheritance
[1] In imposing capital gains tax on the transfer of inherited property, even if the tax authority assessed the acquisition value of assets as a publicly assessed individual land price for the reason that it is difficult to assess the market price at the time of the inheritance of assets, if the market price at the time of the inheritance of assets is proven at the time of the closing of arguments in the lawsuit seeking revocation of the said taxation, the determination of whether the amount of tax assessed exceeds the reasonable tax amount after calculating gains on transfer and the tax amount on the basis of the market price. Here, “market price” means, in principle, an objective exchange price formed through a normal transaction, but this is a concept that includes the value assessed in an objective and reasonable manner, if there is no exchange price through a transaction, the appraisal price at a reliable appraisal institution
[2] The case affirming the judgment below holding that the market price at the time of inheritance of the mortgaged real estate shall be regarded as the acquisition price at the time of inheritance of the mortgaged real estate in calculating transfer income tax, in case where the mortgaged real estate, calculated proportionally by the market price as at the time of inheritance of the mortgaged real estate assessed by the appraisal corporation, exceeds the actual amount
[1] Article 97 (1) 1 (a) of the former Income Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 9485 of Mar. 18, 2009); Article 163 (9) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 20618 of Feb. 22, 2008); Article 60 (1) and (2) and Article 66 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 9916 of Jan. 1, 2010); Article 63 (1) 2 and 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 20720 of Feb. 29, 2009); Article 63 (2) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 9481 of Mar. 18, 2009); Article 20 (1) 6 (1) and 6 (20)1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 20168
[1] Supreme Court Decision 99Du1595 delivered on April 27, 199 (Gong1999Sang, 1086) Supreme Court Decision 2004Du2356 delivered on September 30, 2005 (Gong2005Ha, 1712)
Plaintiff (Law Firm Il, Attorneys Lee E-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Jinju Head of the District Tax Office (Law Firm Cheongn Law, Attorney Austrian, Counsel for defendant-appellant)
Busan High Court Decision 2009Nu6544 decided April 21, 2010
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. According to the main sentence of Article 97(1)1(a) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9485 of Mar. 18, 2009; hereinafter “former Income Tax Act”) and the main sentence of Article 163(9) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20618 of Feb. 22, 2008), in applying the main sentence of Article 97(1)1(a) of the former Income Tax Act to inherited assets, “value appraised under the provisions of Articles 60 through 66 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act as of the date of commencement of inheritance” shall be deemed as the actual transaction value at the time of acquisition.
According to Articles 60(1) and 60(2) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9916, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter “former Inheritance Tax Act”), the value of the property on which inheritance tax is imposed shall be the market value as of the commencement date of inheritance, and such market value shall include the value which is generally deemed to be established in cases of free transactions between many and unspecified persons and which is recognized as the market value under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, such as the expropriation and public sale price and appraisal price. According to Article 66 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, notwithstanding Article 60 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, the value of the property on which a mortgage is established shall be the larger of the value of the property appraised under the provisions of Article 60 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act based on the amount of the property secured by the relevant property as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and the value of the property appraised under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree as of February 27, 2008.
Meanwhile, in imposing the transfer income tax on the transfer of inherited property, even though the tax authority assessed the acquisition value of the pertinent property as a publicly assessed individual land price for the reason that it is difficult to assess the market price at the time of inheritance of the pertinent property, if the market price at the time of inheritance of the pertinent property is verified at the time of the conclusion of the fact-finding procedure in the lawsuit seeking revocation of the said taxation, it should be determined whether the amount of the said taxation exceeds the reasonable tax amount after calculating the reasonable transfer margin and the tax amount. Here, the term “market price” means, in principle, the objective exchange price formed through a normal transaction, but this is a concept that includes the value assessed in an objective and reasonable manner, so if there is no exchange price through a transaction, the appraisal price at a reliable appraisal institution may be deemed to be the “market price,” and even if the value is not changed (see Supreme Court Decisions 9Du1595, Apr. 27, 199; 204Du2356, Sept. 30, 2005).
2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged facts as stated in its reasoning after compiling the adopted evidence, and determined that the market price at the time of inheritance of the instant mortgaged real estate, which was calculated in proportion to the value as of the base date of appraisal of the jointly mortgaged real estate, should be deemed as the acquisition price at the time of inheritance of the instant mortgaged real estate, on March 1, 2004, by the commission of the court below. Such appraisal value is assessed as KRW 982,59,000, which was the starting date of inheritance. Such appraisal value is assessed as an objective and reasonable method by selecting a reasonable comparison standard and considering the location, shape, environment, utilization situation, etc. of the relevant real estate, and can be deemed as the market price reflecting the objective exchange price at the time of inheritance of the instant mortgaged real estate. In this case, the market price at the time of inheritance of the instant mortgaged real estate, which was calculated in proportion to the value as of the base date of appraisal of the jointly mortgaged real estate.
In light of the above relevant statutes, legal principles, and records, such determination by the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the acquisition value of inherited property subject to capital gains tax
3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Min Il-young (Presiding Justice)