beta
(영문) 양도한 토지에 대한 실지취득가액을 어떻게 산정하는 것이 정당한 것인지 여부(기각)

조세심판원 조세심판 | 1989-09-12 | 국심1989부1064 | 양도

[Case Number]

National Trial 1989bu1064 (Law No. 12, 1989)

[Items]

Transfer

[Types of Decision]

Dismissal

[Summary of Decision]

It is reasonable to calculate the tax in proportion to the value calculated by the standard market price at the time of acquisition.

[Related Acts]

Article 170 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act

【Disposition】

I dismiss the appeal.

【Reasoning】

1. Facts;

AppellantO(OO) is a person who has an address of OO2 in Busan, Jin-si, Busan, 200, 200,000,000 won and has been jointly acquired from O20,000,000 won and 3,000,000,000,000 from 215,000,000,0000,0000,000,0000,000,0000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000

In calculating the gains from transfer as the actual transaction value, the disposal agency has the transfer value by parcel, and the actual acquisition value is calculated by dividing and calculating the amount of 430,00,000 won by the proportion of the value calculated according to the standard market price at the time of acquisition of each six parcels. (1) OOOOOOOO return return return 381 square meters at 54,303,394, and (2) OOOOOO return return return return return return 215 square meters at 30,613,362, etc. (other gains from transfer) for the 88.18.18. 88. 88. 88. 18. 88. 88. 48,047,470 won for the transfer income tax for the year of 87 and 9,609,490 won for the defense tax for the year of 87.

The claimant, who is dissatisfied with this, had filed an objection on December 16, 88 and filed an appeal on February 27, 89.6.15.

2. Request;

The claimant purchased 430,00,000 OO-O-owned land 3,018 square meters in Yangnam-gun, Yangsan-gun, Yangsan-gun, which acquired at KRW 430,00 with O-O-O-si other than the claimant's claim, even if the land category on the public record is appurtenant, and the use in urban planning is included up to the part which is a road, and it does not have a difference in the unit price at the initial time of purchase. However, it is true that the road portion is lower than the price of other part; 1,543 square meters in the above 3,00 square meters after dividing the above 3,00 square meters into six parcels; 30,000,000 won in proportion to the actual acquisition value of the transferred land; 430,000,000 won in total and 430,000 won in total, 30,000 won in proportion to the acquisition value of the land at issue; 30,53044,04,06,000.

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

This case has no dispute over the actual transfer value, and there is a dispute over the actual acquisition value. According to the sales contract at the time of acquisition, it is argued that the sales price of 430,000,000 won in a lump sum prior to the division into six parcels, and there is no separate value for each intended use, and the content of the letter of confirmation and the letter of answer of 88.9.1 of the former owner other than the claim, it is confirmed that the disposal agency sold it en bloc without distinction between the value of the road scheduled area and the general land. Therefore, it is legitimate to calculate the acquisition value of this case by the disposal agency, while there is no basis for calculating the claim owner's calculation, it is not acceptable because there is no specific standard.

4. Issues

This dispute is about how to calculate the real acquisition value of transferred land is legitimate.

5. Hearing and determination

First, Article 170(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides, “If land and buildings are acquired or transferred together, they shall be separated and entered, and if the distinction between the value of land and buildings is unclear, it shall be calculated in proportion to the value calculated according to the standard market price at the time of acquisition or transfer. In this case, the common acquisition value and transfer expenses shall be calculated in proportion to

In this case, according to the sales contract at the time of acquisition, the sales contract at the time of acquisition only indicates that the sales price of 3,018 square meters is 430,000,000 won for the OOOO 3,018 square meters in Yangsan-gun, Yangsan-gun, Yangyang-gun, Yangsan-gun, and thus, the sales price or unit price is not separately indicated according to the purpose of urban planning. Therefore, each land on six parcels divided the same land is unclear as provided in Article 170 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act;

On the other hand, the claimant's assertion that the road is the planned road area in the urban planning and is not the actual road, but the actual road becomes the future, and in the case of the latter, the related laws provide for the compensation in principle for the market price. In addition, since there is no legal ground for calculating the claimant's assertion that "the acquisition value of OOOOOO No No. 1543 square meters of the six parcels of land, which is the planned road area, shall be the standard market price, and the amount obtained by subtracting it from 430,00,000 won, which shall be calculated in proportion to the standard market price of 5 parcels of land, shall be calculated in a higher ratio in proportion to the actual acquisition value of the transferred land by calculating it in proportion to the standard market price of 5 parcels of land, the actual acquisition value of the transferred land shall be calculated in proportion to the value calculated according to

Therefore, a disposition that calculates and imposes the real acquisition value of the transferred land by calculating the real acquisition value of the transferred land according to the ratio of the value calculated according to the standard market price at the time of acquisition of six parcels is justifiable, while it is judged that there is no reason for other claim.

6. Conclusion

Since a request for a trial is recognized as groundless as a result of a trial, it shall be decided as ordered in accordance with Articles 81 and 65(1)2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes.