[증여세등부과처분취소][하집1990(1),624]
The meaning at the time of imposing gift tax, which is the base date for the evaluation of donated property under Articles 34-5 and 9(2) of the Inheritance Tax Act, and Article 5(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same
According to Articles 34-5 and 9(2) of the Inheritance Tax Act and Article 5(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, where the tax base and tax amount of gift tax pursuant to the Inheritance Tax Act have not been reported, the value of donated property shall be determined at the market price at the time of the imposition of gift tax. In this case, at the time of the imposition of gift tax, the value of donated property shall be determined at the time of the first determination of the tax base for the pertinent property and the date of determination of the value of donated property. Thus, if the tax authority recognized that the Plaintiff acquired the property in his own possession as a result of a direct investigation with the knowledge of the Plaintiff's acquisition of the land in this case and decided again to exempt the property from taxation, and then recognized the donated property as the Plaintiff's financing source, the value of donated property applied to the imposition of gift tax can be determined at the time of the tax authority
Article 34-5 of the Inheritance Tax Act, Article 9 of the same Act, Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act
Plaintiff
The director of the tax office
1. Of the disposition imposing gift tax of KRW 98,716,460 on the Plaintiff on June 16, 198 and KRW 17,948,440 on the said defense tax, the part exceeding KRW 6,751,546 and KRW 1,29,372 shall be revoked.
2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.
3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.
The disposition of imposition of gift tax of KRW 98,716,460 against the Plaintiff on June 16, 198 and KRW 17,948,440 against the defense tax shall be revoked.
The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
The following facts are as follows: Gap evidence No. 1-1, 2-1, 2-1, 3-2, Gap evidence No. 4-1, 2-1, 2-1, 2-1, 2-2, 2-1, 2-1, 3-2-1, 2-3, 3, 4 (Calculation of Value of Gift Tax), 5 (83), and 6-1-6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act, the plaintiff's tax office calculated the tax amount of the above list No. 1-67 of the above list No. 97 by applying the corresponding list No. 96-1, 6-1, 7 of the gift Tax Act to the value of the above list No. 97 of the above list No. 1, 67 of the gift Tax Act, and the value of the above list No. 97 of the non-party's land acquired by the plaintiff's tax office at the time of the above list No. 97 of the above list No. 1, 967 of the above land.
(1) On July 1984 and April 1985, the Plaintiff (1) investigated whether the above head of the Suwon Tax Office imposed a gift on the land indicated in [Attachment List No. 1] 2 through 5 among the pertinent land, and then asserted that, notwithstanding the decision of non-taxation pursuant to Articles 107 and 117 of the National Tax Service Directive No. 916 of the Regulations on the Investigation of Property Taxes, again imposed a tax on the Plaintiff violates the principle of trust and good faith under Article 15 of the Framework Act on National Taxes for promoting the stability of the legal life of the citizens and suppressing the abuse of authority by the administrative agencies, and is bound by the non-taxation authority's arbitrary cancellation, modification, or withdrawal. (2) Since the Defendant again imposed a tax disposition after the non-taxation decision was lawful, it should be determined based on the above provisions of Article 15 of the Framework Act on National Taxes after the lapse of 10 years from the date of the above decision of non-taxation, it should not be deemed that the above tax disposition was unlawful.
First, in light of the above principles of good faith under the Framework Act on National Taxes and the provisions of Articles 34-5, 25(1) and 25(3) of the Inheritance Tax Act, the tax base and tax amount of gift tax shall be determined by the donee's report. However, if there is no report or it is deemed unfair, the government shall determine the tax base and tax amount, and even if there is an omission or error in the tax base and tax amount, the tax base and tax amount shall be immediately determined. If the plaintiff did not report the above land as donated property after the acquisition, and even if there was a non-taxation decision on each of the above land pursuant to the above provisions of the Administrative Affairs Act, if the plaintiff acquired the above land later, it cannot be deemed that the tax base and tax amount of gift tax can be imposed on the plaintiff pursuant to the above provisions of the Inheritance Tax Act, because it cannot be deemed that the above taxation disposition violates the principle of good faith and the market value of gift tax at the time of imposition of gift tax. Next, the value of each of the above land cannot be determined by the court below's determination.
Furthermore, as seen above, with respect to the legitimate tax amount to be imposed on the land indicated in the list Nos. 2 through 7 among the land acquired by the Plaintiff, as to the land indicated in the above list Nos. 2 through 4, it shall be calculated in accordance with Article 5 (2) 1 (b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act as of June 16, 198 as of the date of the tax exemption, as to the land indicated in the above list No. 2 through 4, and as to the land indicated in the above list No. 5, the date of the above list No. 30, Apr. 30, 1985, and as to the land indicated in the above list No. 6 and 7, the above list No. 5, which is the date of the above tax exemption, as of June 16, 198, according to Article 5 (2) 1 (b) of the above Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act, the value calculated in accordance with the above list No. 2 through No. 7, the above list No. 5-1 to be recognized as the equivalent value of the above list No. 3.
Therefore, the part of the defendant's taxation of this case which exceeded the above recognized tax amount is illegal. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above recognized scope, and the remaining claims are dismissed as without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Article 8 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act and the proviso of Article 92 of the Civil Procedure Act as to the costs of lawsuit pursuant to Article 8 (2)
Judges Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Judge)