beta
상호신용금고 대출금을 상속재산에서 채무로 공제하여야 하는지 여부(기각)

조세심판원 조세심판 | 1996-12-29 | 국심1995서3734 | 상증

[Case Number]

National High Court Decision 1995 Schedules 3734 ( December 30, 1996)

[Items]

O-speed

[Types of Decision]

Dismissal

[Summary of Decision]

The amount of unpaid interest and late payment of the loan until the death of the person under the jurisdiction of the head of the tax office shall be added to the debt of the person under the jurisdiction of the head of the tax office, and it is difficult to recognize the claimant's assertion that the O-ho installment related to the loan should be recognized as the debt of the person under the jurisdiction of the

[Related Acts]

Article 26 of the Local Tax Act / [Additional Tax]

【Determination following Decision】

National Trial 197 Middle0762

【Disposition】

1. For the 94-year O-speed imposed on the claimant by the head of the Guro-gu Tax Office;

6,871,688,960 won shall be imposed.

(a) Investigation of the re-acquisition value as at the time of commencement of Ospeed of an automobile which is Ospeed property;

from the value to the beginning of the Ospeed, the reduction from the time of acquisition to

The value after deducting each expense shall be the value of property under the jurisdiction of the Corporation.

(b) In imposing an additional tax for unfaithful payment, the tax amount reported under O-high speed tax;

An application amount for annual installments, which is 3/40 of the 5,772,845,378 won, 4,329,634,033

the application shall be subject to no additional tax;

The tax base and amount shall be corrected.

2. The old director of the tax office does not allow the claimant to pay annual installments.

Any disposition which has not been taken shall be revoked.

3. Attachment of O-high speed property by the head of the Guro Tax Office to the claimant.3.20

Any request against a disposition shall be rejected.

4. The remaining claims are dismissed.

【Reasoning】

1. Summary of disposition;

AppellantO, OO, OO, OO, OO, OO, or OO (hereinafter referred to as “applicants”) reported O duties to the 94.9.12, which was within the deadline for filing O duties, while filing an application for annual payment of the payable tax with the 94.9.12, which was the deadline for filing O duties.

The disposition agency made a correction of the tax base and tax amount reported by the claimant, and notified the claimant that it is not able to accept the application for annual payment, since it made a decision to the claimant on May 17, 95 and did not pay it at all. Thus, the agency made a notification that it is impossible to accept the application for annual payment.

The claimant appealed against this and filed an appeal on October 31, 95 after the 195.7.13.

2. Opinions of the applicant and the Commissioner of the National Tax Service;

(a) Request;

(1) Pursuant to the provisions of the O-Credit Depository Act, the loans borrowed under the name of another person from O-O credit safe, such as O-O credit safe, with a fixed limit of loans extended to the same person and borrowed from the O-O-O credit safe, etc. is KRW 3,38,200,00, and the interest and arrears accrued until the date of the commencement of the O-O credit safe is KRW 97,146,569, and thus, the liabilities of the O-O credit safe borne by the P-O person at the commencement date of the O-O credit safe are KRW 3,435,346,569.

However, since the OB credit installments paid by the POC prior to the commencement date of OB in connection with the above loan amounting to KRW 791,758,200,00,000,000,000 from the above loan amounting to KRW 3,435,346,569, less KRW 791,758,200,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0

(2) Of the loan 220,00,000 won and the deposit 340,000,000,0000 won and the deposit 560,000,000,000 won, the remainder of 497,621,110 won, which is calculated by deducting the interest payment amount under the name of the person under whose name is the O, is unclear, shall be included in the taxable value of the O duties. However, since the claimant did not have been bound by the O, it is improper to include the amount in the taxable value of the O duties and impose taxes by including the amount of KRW 497,621,110 in the taxable value of the O duties.

(3) 381.9m2 of OOO land in Nam-gu Seoul Metropolitan City is marked as a road on a certified copy of the register, and is actually used as a road, so it cannot be deemed as O-owned property, and even if it is included in O-owned property, the assessed value should be zero (0).

(4) It is unreasonable to apply 2 years to the evaluation by applying the remaining rate pursuant to Article 5(2)7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Organizational Tax Act as it is difficult to calculate the market price for automobiles included in O-owned property.

Moreover, it is difficult to understand that the disposition agency rejected the application of the past year even though it asked Seoul Special Metropolitan City about the question and presented the reply question (Seoul Special Metropolitan City 13407-0453 and 13407-907).

(5) Inasmuch as the claimant did not permit the annual payment at the time of filing the return (94.9.12) and did not pay the tax amount to 1/4 of the tax amount due within the return period, it is unreasonable to apply the additional payment for erroneous payment for the total amount of the tax amount determined by ON without permission for annual payment.

(6) The disposition agency imposed additional tax on KRW 497,621,110 included in the taxable value of O-high speed, on the part of the claimant's O-high speed property of KRW 95,208,226 and the part of the respondent's obligation within 2 years prior to the date of O-high speed, on KRW 497,621,110 included in the list of O-high speed property of KRW 95,208,226, and the part of the obligor

(7) The disposition agency seizes the property of the claimant 95.3.20 prior to the notice of this case to the claimant (95.5.17). This is unlawful as a seizure disposition without the notice of tax payment and the notice of demand.

In addition, the property of the claimant, attached by the agency, shall be deducted from the value assessed by the agency at the time of tax assessment of the office's property, which is equivalent to 14,586,505,995 won or 6,87,68,960 won or 6,88,960 won.

This is because the disposition agency made it difficult for the claimant to exercise his property rights by means of excessive seizure compared to the delinquent tax amount in order to collect the listed tax, so the disposition of the disposition agency should be cancelled.

(b) Opinions of the Commissioner of National Tax Service;

(1) The reason that the value of the property is not deducted from

First, there was no fact that the obligations were initially reported to the liabilities of the person under ON at the time of the initial ON declaration.

Second, there is no evidence proving that the actual debtor of the loan under another person's name is an Operception.

Third, among others' titles presented by the claimant, the OO is a person who operates (main)O as an infant of the person under whose control it is operated by the OOO, and the OO is a company operated by the OO, which is an infant of the person under whose control it is operated by the OO.

Fourth, OO does not require more loans of O than KRW 1,174,500,00 as a real estate rental business entity under the name of the business owner, and during this period, OO does not have any real estate, etc. and the place of use is unclear.

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that loans under another person's name were used as business funds of OO and OO that are the children of O, and there is no basis for the argument that the loans under another person's name are obligations of OO.

(2) As to 220,00,000 won and 340,000,000 won for rental deposit (the date 94.28,28,200,000 won on the date 93.12.27), the original use of O was not presented except for 62,379,000 won paid by the O in the event the O was explained by the O, and there is no documentary evidence to deem that the O had paid the installment and interest on the other person's account as presented at the time of the request for review by the O, and (i) the O was investigated as to 340,00,000 won for 340,000,000 won as the O's 13 days prior to the commencement of O's speed, the O was justified in the disposition originally included in the taxable value.

(3) The initial disposition imposed on the site as of the date of commencement of the OP, which was confirmed as officially announced, is justifiable.

(4) The claimant's assertion is based on the end of the year of use (12.31) and is two years at the start of the O-speed (3.13).

Therefore, it is reasonable to apply two years to the elderly.

(5) In a case where annual payment is made pursuant to Article 21 of the Enforcement Decree of the Organizational Tax Act, the amount to be paid is 1/4 of the amount to be paid by annual payment, and if the amount is not paid by annual payment, it cannot be viewed as a legitimate annual payment (the initial disposition is justifiable (the property of the Ministry of Finance and Economy inquiry about the property of the Inquiry Board, 460-15

(6) The amount of unfair debt deduction cannot be considered as the difference in the appraisal of the O-speed property, the original disposition is justified.

(7) On the grounds of the preservation before the determination of national taxes, first, an application for payment by annual installments was filed at the time of tax return, and did not fully pay the tax amount of 1/4,000,000 won. Second, according to the tax estimate amount of 6.9 billion won, the amount of 7.3 billion won, the amount of debts established in the O-high real estate, 2 billion won, and other search, the personal bonds also amounted to the amount of O-high real estate, thereby having concerns over tax loss.

In addition, the argument that the excess seizure is also an excessive seizure is not justified because it is not an excessive seizure.

3. Hearing and determination

A. Key issue

(1) Whether the O-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S

(2) The validity of the disposition included in the taxable value of the OP on the ground that the amount of KRW 497,621,110 out of the debts borne by the person under whose control the OP within two years prior to the first day of the OP is not clear.

(3) The propriety of the disposition of assessing the Factual road as the officially announced value and adding it to the publicly announced value

(4) Whether the appraisal at the time of the commencement of the O-speed of a car, an O-high speed property is justified or not.

(5) The legitimacy of the disposition that did not permit the payment by annual installments applied for, and whether the penalty tax should be imposed on the total tax amount applied for by annual installments on the ground that it did not pay 1/4 of the tax amount.

(6) The propriety of imposing additional tax on negligent tax on the debt borne by the person under O within 2 years prior to the beginning date of the O-high speed, where the difference in the appraisal of the O-high speed property and the place of use are unclear.

(7) We affirm the legitimacy of the attachment disposition prior to the date of the duty payment notice.

B. As to the key issue1

The petitioners claim that they borrowed KRW 3,338,200,000 in the name of other person than under the name of the person under whose control is not under the name of the person under whose control when they borrow from the OO credit credit depository, OO credit credit depository, OO credit depository, OO credit credit depository, etc.

However, it is difficult to recognize a loan of KRW 3,338,200,000 from the OF as a loan under the OF because there is no reliable proof to acknowledge that the OF borrowed funds under the name of another person from the above OFF, etc., and there is no evidence to prove that the OF acquired property owned by the OF or repaid the interest on the loan with the funds borrowed under the name of another person.

In this case, the claimant's assertion that the unpaid interest and late interest of the above loan up to the time of his death should be added to 97,146,569 won per O's debt. The claimant's assertion that the above loan should be reduced by 791,758,200 won shall be recognized as the O's debt.

C. As to the issues2

93.12.27 Of 27 loans, KRW 200,000 and KRW 340,000,000 and KRW 560,000,000,000 other than KRW 62,379,000 paid by the respondent, the remainder of KRW 497,621,00,000 did not present the evidence of the respondent, and the increase in the rental deposit would result in KRW 340,00,000,000 in accordance with the rental deposit of (main)O operated by the company operated by the OO as the person under the control of the OO, which also occurred 13 days prior to the commencement of the O.

Therefore, it is difficult to accept the claim statement that the amount of increase in the debt without the presentation of evidence should be excluded from the taxable value of O-high speed, for 497,621,00 won.

D. As to the key issue 3

The land of 381.9 square meters of OOOO in Nam-gu, Seoul Metropolitan City was "site" at the time of the commencement date of the O speed (94.3.13), and the officially announced land price at the time of commencement of the O speed as publicly notified by the Minister of Construction and Transportation is the land which is 161,000 square meters per square meter.

As a result, the disposition agency imposed the appraised value based on the officially announced value of the above land as the O-exclusive property value, considering that it is recognized by the O-high decision resolution of the disposition agency, and the land category at the time of the commencement of O-high, is the land category as the site of economic value.

However, according to the land cadastre and the copy of the register of the exhibition land, the land is changed from the land category to the road after the date of commencement of the ON, and according to the photographs of the above land as of the date of appeal presented by the claimant, the land is recognized as a road passing through the general public in which the house is located.

In the event that the land exhibited is classified as a site at the commencement date of theO and is officially announced, and even if it becomes a road used by the general public after the commencement date of theO, if it is expropriated in the State or a local government, it shall be deemed that it is an owner of the property with an economic value, and it shall be included in the taxable value of the O-high speed as an O-high property (the meaning of 63, 94.7.23).

E. Regarding the key issue 4

(1) According to Article 5(1), Article 5(2)3, and 5(2)7 of the Enforcement Decree of the OA, the value of the O-owned property of the same motor vehicle as this case shall be the market price at the time of the commencement of the O-speed, and if it is difficult to compute the market price, the value shall be the value calculated by deducting the depreciation cost from the time of acquisition to the date of commencement of the O-speed.

However, it is difficult for the agency to assess the acquisition value of the instant vehicle as the basis for the reduction of the office value, and the remaining value of 13,316,800 won calculated by making the lapse of two years as the value of the O-owned property under Article 5 (2) 3 and 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Organization Tax Act.

(2) In the same way, the value of the Oexclusive property of this case shall be the value of the Oexclusive property after investigating the value of the items mentioned above that it is required at the time of the commencement of the Ospeed and deducting the depreciation cost from the value to the date of the commencement of the Ospeed.

F. Regarding the key issue 5

(1) Relevant statutes

(A) Article 28(1) of the OA, effective at the time of the commencement of this case, when the amount of tax payable exceeds 10 million won, the director of the tax office may grant permission for annual payment by annual installments upon application of the taxpayer, as prescribed by the Presidential Decree.

In this case, a taxpayer must provide a security.

(B) The main sentence of Article 20(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the U.S. Tax Act provides that a person who intends to apply for payment by annual installments of the ON pursuant to the provision of Article 28(1) of the Act shall submit an application for payment by annual installments to the head of the competent district tax office along with the written report at the time of submission of the report

In addition, paragraph (2) of the same Article provides that the head of tax office in receipt of an application for annual payment under paragraph (1) of the same Article shall determine and notify the applicant in writing at the time of notification of tax base and tax amount under Article 19

(C) Article 21 of the Enforcement Decree of the U.S. Tax Act provides that the amount to be paid in annual installments pursuant to the provisions of Article 28(1) shall be as follows. Article 28(1)1 of the same Act provides that the amount to be paid in annual installments shall be the amount to be paid in 1/4 of the amount to be paid in annual installments if the period of annual installments is three years, and subparagraph 2 of the same Article provides that the amount to be paid in annual installments shall be divided into the amount to

(D) Article 26(2) of the O’s Tax Act provides that in a case where the O’s tax was not paid within the time limit for payment of O’s tax or was paid below the payable tax amount, the sum of the amount calculated by multiplying 10/100 of the unpaid tax amount and the amount calculated by multiplying the unpaid tax amount by the rate as determined by the Presidential Decree in consideration of the financial institution’s interest rate shall be imposed on the unpaid

However, Article 19-2 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the OA shall be the remaining amount calculated by deducting 10/100 of the unpaid tax amount from the amount calculated by applying 4% per annum to the unpaid tax amount during the period from the day following the deadline for payment of the OA tax return to the day preceding the date of payment, which shall be limited to 20/100 of the unpaid tax amount.

(2) Hearing and determination

(A) The annual payment system under Article 28 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of International Taxes in Wartime, has a large amount of tax in the case of O consecutive tax, and there are many cases where the O consecutive property is an asset requiring a period of time stated in real estate realization. In such a case, if the principle for lump-sum payment is maintained solely on the basis of the convenience of collection, it imposes an excessive burden on the taxpayer. As such, it would result in compelling the taxpayer to dispose of the O consecutive property within the short payment period, thereby undermining the basic life of the taxpayer. Therefore, the purpose of this provision is to provide the taxpayer with the benefits of installment payment and the extension of the payment period to the extent that it does not prejudice the national tax revenue.

In addition, Article 28 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that the amount of tax payable by the corporation exceeds 10 million won, provides security for tax payment, and the case of application for payment by annual installments is stipulated as the requirements for permission by annual installments. Therefore, if these requirements are satisfied, the head of tax office should grant permission by annual installments (Supreme Court Decision 91Nu9374, 92.10).

In addition, Article 21 of the Enforcement Decree of the Organizational Tax Act is a provision on how to calculate the annual payment, and Article 21 (1) 1 (a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Organizational Tax Act provides that the amount of tax to be paid by one fourth of the amount of tax to be paid by the corporation is the amount to be paid by the deadline for the return and payment of tax to the corporation, and it is not a provision on permission for annual payment to be paid by annual payment,

(B) In this case, the claimant filed an application for annual payment with the amount of tax payable on September 12, 94, which is 5,772,845,370, within the deadline for filing the return of tax payable on the ground that the amount of tax payable is 5,772,845,370, with the disposition authority, and the value assessed as the officially assessed value was 6,593,759,000, OOOOO's site in Seoul Metropolitan City as security for tax payment.

In this case, since the OA tax to be paid by the claimant meets the requirements for permission for annual payment by annual installments stipulated in Article 28(1) of the International Tax Act in wartime, it is judged that the disposition of 95.5.31 does not permit annual payment by the claimant's request is unfair.

In addition, since the tax amount to be paid by the claimant satisfies the requirements for annual installment payment, the claimant's tax amount to be paid within the period for the return on the ON return will be the amount calculated by 1/4 of the returned tax amount. Therefore, even though the additional tax should be imposed pursuant to Article 26 of theOA, it is erroneous that the disposition agency considered the total amount of annual installment payment application tax to have been unpaid, and imposed the penalty tax for unfaithful payment.

G. On the issues6

(1) In the event that property under the O is not reported within the reporting period, or is reported below the reported tax base under the provisions of Article 26(1) of the Act, the amount equivalent to 20/100 of the amount calculated by multiplying the ratio of the amount not reported to the tax base determined under the provisions of Article 25 or the amount short of the reported tax base by the calculated tax amount under the OAA shall be added to the calculated tax amount under the OAA.

However, it is stipulated that the amount of the reported property which falls short of the tax base to be reported due to the difference in the value of the assessment shall be excluded from the additional tax department.

(2) In this case, 95,208,226 won of the difference between the claimant's report amount and the appraisal amount by the decision of the agency in charge is due to the difference in the appraisal value stipulated in Article 26 (1) of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act, and 95,208,226 won was not imposed on the claimant's report amounting to 56.6m2,00,000 OOO's OOO's OOO's OO's OO's OO's O's OO's O's O's O's O's O's O's O's O's O's O's 2,081.7m2,000,000 won

However, among the 809,114,136 won which the disposition agency applied the additional tax on negligent tax returns, the amount of KRW 713,905,910, excluding the amount of KRW 95,208,226, excluding the amount of KRW 95,208,226, shall be included in the taxable value of the non-reported property, and thus, the additional tax on negligent tax returns should be imposed.

H. As to the key issue7

(1) Article 24(2) of the National Tax Collection Act provides that a taxpayer may seize the taxpayer’s property to the extent of the presumed amount of national tax, even before the determination of national taxes, where a cause falling under any subparagraph of Article 14(1) exists, and Article 14(1)7 of the same Act provides that “when it is deemed that there is an act of evading national taxes.”

(2) Meanwhile, Article 61(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that a request for review shall be made within 60 days from the date (if a notice of disposition is received, the date on which the notice of disposition is received) on which the relevant disposition is known, and Article 65(1)1 of the same Act provides that a request for review shall be dismissed when the period for request under Article 61 expires, and Articles 61 and 65 provide that a request for review shall also apply mutatis mutandis to a request

Since the preservation before the determination of the national tax by the disposition agency was made on March 20, 95 and the request for review was made on July 13, 95, it is reasonable to dismiss the disposition, as the request period has already been set against the legitimacy of the seizure disposition at the time of the request for review.

I. The request for a trial of this case is deemed to be partly reasonable by the claimant's assertion, and it is so decided as per Disposition in accordance with Articles 81 and 65 (1) 1, 2 and 3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes.

(Added)

Details of the petitioner's address;

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO of the Won-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Kucheon-gu, Kucheon-si, Kucheon-gu, Kucheon-gu, OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO of the O-dong Seoul Metropolitan City, OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO of the Yongsan-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooOOOOOOOOO in Seo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City.