On October 31, 1993, the disposition agency has acquired six kinds of mid-term (11) (hereinafter referred to as "mid-term") such as 11,00,000, and reported and collected acquisition tax on August 22, 1994. However, as a result of the tax investigation conducted by the disposition agency with respect to the applicant corporation, the disposition agency imposed on and collected acquisition tax on five of the mid-term (4,00,000 won for acquisition tax calculated by applying the tax rate of Article 112 (1) of the Local Tax Act to the value (including additional tax) below the value on the corporate account books. < Amended by Act No. 5777, Dec. 10, 1995; Act No. 4797, Oct. 31, 1995>

2. Purpose and reason of the request.

On September 15, 1994, the applicant filed a request for revocation of the disposition of acquisition tax by asserting that it is unreasonable to impose acquisition tax on the mid-term period, which was paid by the disposition agency, even though the acquisition tax on the mid-term period subject to acquisition tax was paid on the corporation established for the purpose of business, such as mining and aggregate gathering and processing business, and it is a fixed type with no engine, and it is not a taxable object of acquisition tax as a production facility.

3. Judgment of the Republic of Korea

A request for review of this case is a dispute as to whether a disposition imposing and collecting acquisition tax under-reported after proving the acquisition value by the corporate account book is legitimate, and whether a disposition imposing and assessing acquisition tax is legitimate, considering that such disposition is deemed legitimate and strings and screenings.

A. First, examining the provisions of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes

Article 104 subparagraph 2-2 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4794, Dec. 22, 1994; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that "mid the provisions of subparagraph 2-2 of Article 104 of the former Local Tax Act, the term "mid the mid-term period under the Mid-Term Management Act and those fixed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs", and Article 40-2 of the former Enforcement Rule (amended by Ordinance No. 602, Dec. 31, 1993; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that "mid the provisions of subparagraph 2-2 of Article 104 of the Act, it shall be prescribed in attached Table 5 regardless of the purpose of construction work, loading and unloading of wharfs or airports, mining, or other purposes," and subparagraph 1-2 of Article 104 of the former Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that "those acquired at the rate of 1-10% or more shall be determined by Presidential Decree" and subparagraph 3 of the same Article 29 of the same Act shall also be omitted.

B. Next, examining the case of the requesting corporation

The disposition agency shall confirm the fact that the applicant corporation acquired the studio and under-paid payment below the acquisition value and did not report and pay acquisition tax on the string and screening season as much as the difference is confirmed in the corporate account book, so the fact that acquisition tax was imposed and collected can be known from the related evidential materials submitted.

그런데 청구법인은 먼저 이건 중기중 천공기 등 일부 중기는 취득세를 이미 납부하였는데도 추징부과고지한 것은 이중과세라고 주장하고 있지만, 구지방세법 제111조제1항, 제5항 및 구같은법시행령 제82조의2제1항을 종합해 보면, 취득세의 과세표준(취득가액)을 취득 당시의 가액으로 하되, 법인의 경우에는 법인장부에서 입증되는 가액을 취득가격으로 하도록 규정하고 있는 바, 청구법인은 1994.8.22.이건 중기중 굴삭기(2대), 로우더(2대), 공기압축기, 천공기에 대한 취득세 자진신고 납부를 하면서 취득가액을 100,000,000원으로하여 취득세(2,400,000원)를 납부하였으나, 청구법인의 제1기 법인결산서(대차대조표, 부속명세서, 기계장치명세서, 원장)에서 중기의 취득가액이 309,170,000원으로 계상되어 있음이 확인되고 있으므로 처분청에서 기납부한 취득세의 과세표준액(100,000,000원)을 차감한 금액(209,170,000원)을 취득세 과세표준으로 하여 산출한 취득세를 추징고지한 처분은 적법하다 하겠고, 다음으로 청구법인은 쇄석기 및 선별기는 원동기가 장착되지 아니한 고정식으로 석재가공을 위한 생산설비이므로 취득세 과세대상에 해당되지 아니한다고 주장하지만, 구 지방세법 제104조제2호의2 및 구같은법시행규칙 제40조의2에서 중기에 대한 과세대상은 중기관리법에 의한 중기와 내무부령으로 정하는 중기로 정하고 과세대상 중기범위 에서 쇄석기는 20킬로와트 이상의 원동기를 가진 것으로 정하고, 선별기는 골재 선별장치를 가진 것으로 원동기를 장치한 모든 것으로 규정하고 있는 바, 청구법인이 취득한 쇄석기 및 선별기를 석재가공용으로 사용하고 있다 하더라도 처분청 세무조사담당공무원 ㅇㅇㅇ외 1인이 현지확인한 결과 선별기는 150kw의 원동기가 부착되어 있고, 쇄석기(3대)는 150kw～225kw의 원동기가 부착되어 사용하고 있음이 확인되고 있으므로 구지방세법에서 규정한 취득세 과세대상에 해당되는 이상, 청구법인이 원동기를 설치하지 아니하여 취득세 과세대상에 해당되지 아니한다는 주장은 인정할 수 없다 하겠으므로 처분청에서 취득세를 부과고지한 처분은 적법하다 하겠다.

Therefore, since the claimant corporation's assertion is recognized as groundless, it is decided as ordered by Article 58 (5) of the Local Tax Act.

July 25, 1996

Ministry of Home Affairs;