증여자를 다르게 기재하여 신고 하였다고하여 부당무신고가산세 대상으로 볼 수는 없음[국패]
Changwon District Court-2015-Gu Partnership-23081 ( October 14, 2017)
It shall not be subject to an unfair non-reported penalty tax because the donor filed a report by stating differently the donor.
It is difficult to see that the taxpayer did not properly report the taxable value and the calculation of the tax base of the gift tax solely on the ground that the taxpayer merely stated matters concerning the donor differently from the fact when reporting the taxable value and the tax base of the gift tax.
Article 47 of the Framework Act on National Taxes
2017Nu10459. Partial revocation of the imposition of gift tax
A. Ha and 1
Head of Jinju Tax Office
September 13, 2017
October 18, 2017
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
1. Purport of claim
Of the disposition imposing gift tax on the Plaintiffs on November 1, 2013, the Defendant revoked the disposition imposing penalty tax of KRW 26,948,113,710 (=additional penalty tax of KRW 10,632,516,753 + additional tax for unfaithful payment + KRW 16,315,596,957).
2. Purport of appeal
The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and all plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
This court's reasoning is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the addition as follows. Thus, this court's reasoning is acceptable in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The addition;
The defendant asserts to the effect that although the plaintiff Leeb was under title trust with the shares of this case from the plaintiff Leeba, the original trustee reported the gift tax base as if they were donated from Lee C, which was the original trustee, and that this constitutes an unfair non-declaration report as to the fact that the plaintiff Leebb received the shares of this case from the plaintiff Leeba, since it constitutes not only the fact that the donor was stated differently, but also the cause was stated differently from the actual fact.
The legislative purport of Article 47-2(2)1 and Article 47-3(2)6 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 911, Jan. 1, 2010); Article 27(2)6 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2038, Feb. 18, 2010) is to impose sanctions on Plaintiff 1 who violated the duty to report tax base or tax amount by unlawful means, where it is difficult to discover the facts that constitute the basis of calculating the tax base or tax amount of national taxes or fraudulent acts, and thus, the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 910, Jan. 1, 201; see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da179710, supra) is that the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act does not change the scope of the gift tax imposed on Plaintiff 1 and other unlawful acts.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is just and the defendant's appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.