외국 비상장주식을 순자산가치로만 평가하는 경우에는 보충적 평가방법 적용이 부당하다고 볼 이유가 없음[국승]
Seoul Administrative Court-2015-Gu Partnership-71747 ( December 08, 2016)
Where foreign unlisted stocks are assessed as net asset value, there is no reason to deem that the application of supplementary valuation methods is inappropriate.
If a foreign unlisted stock is assessed as net asset value without considering net profit and loss value, there is no reason to deem that the application of the supplementary assessment method is inappropriate, and it is not necessary to further prove that the tax authority is inappropriate to apply the supplementary assessment method.
Evaluation of overseas property under Article 58-3 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act
2017Nu30360 Revocation of revocation of disposition of imposing inheritance tax, etc.
1. KimA
2. KimB
3. Rock;
4. KimD
1. The director of the E Tax Office;
2. The head of the F Tax Office.
June 16, 2017
August 11, 2017
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The imposition (including additional taxes) of KRW 26,754,866,300 of the inheritance tax (including the inheritance tax) that Defendant EE head of the tax office rendered against the Plaintiffs on July 1, 2014 shall be revoked. The imposition (including additional taxes) by Defendant FF head of the tax office against the Plaintiff KimA shall be revoked in the attached Table [Attachment] (3) of the global income tax imposition (including the additional tax) set forth in each
1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;
This judgment is based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for dismissal or deletion of the following: therefore, it is based on Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
○ 5 pages 2, “instant disposition” is regarded as “each disposition of this case.”
○ 5, 9 pages 9, "the defendant" is regarded as "the tax office".
○ 7 pages 16, " shall be fair," and the statement in Gap evidence 33 shall not interfere with the above recognition.
○ 13 pages 11 to 21 are as follows:
In full view of the purport of the argument in the statement No. 20, the tax year under the Hong Kong tax law is recognized as having been 12 months, ending on March 31 of the following year from April 1 of each year to April 31 of the following year (each of the statements in the evidence No. 26, 27, and 28 of the above Act is difficult to view otherwise). The business year from the business year belonging to October 15, 2003 to the business year immediately preceding the business year belonging to March 15, 2005, which belongs to the base date of appraisal, from October 15, 2003 to March 31, 204. In order to be excluded from the largest shareholder verification under Article 53(5)4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, the corporate accounting standard under the above business year should be zero, less than 30G evidence No. 13037,41 and 204, respectively.
Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is not accepted (the legislative intent of the evaluation of the largest shareholder is to reflect the value of the management right or the management right premium in calculating the value of the inherited property. Therefore, in light of the fact that the plaintiffs continue to engage in the GG business for a long period of time to exercise the management right, etc. over the GG business, it is difficult to view the evaluation of
○ 14 page 15 states that “No corresponding case shall be deemed to exist” or “no case shall be deemed to fall under the case where the liquidation procedure of H is completed, as alleged by the Plaintiffs.”
○ 15, 15, 5, “each” shall be deleted.
2. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed in its entirety due to the lack of reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed in its entirety due to the lack of reason, and it is so decided as per Disposition.
[Attachment]
【Unit: Won】
(1) Date of disposition.
(2) Year of reversion.
(3) Income tax
Disposition of Imposition
(4) Political tax amount;
(5) The tax amount to be cancelled.
April 10, 2014
205
104,637,700
0
104,637,700
206
328,664,370
45,759,310
282,905,060
July 1, 2014
2007
324,458,150
43,976,270
280,481,880
208
80,739,210
40,733,330
40,005,880
209
179,578,580
43,429,850
136,148,730
2010
41,791,640
37,394,340
4,397,300
2011
4,550,170
19,928,740
24,621,430
2012
8,890,340
4,666,310
84,224,030
Consolidateds
1,193,310,160
235,888,150
957,422,010