양도인이 양수인에게 지급하여야 할 물품대금을 양도대금으로 대체하기로 한 사실이 인정됨[국승]
National Tax Service Review and Transfer 2011-0291 (20 December 2012)
It is recognized that the transferor intended to substitute the price for the goods to be paid to the transferee with the transfer price.
According to the confirmation, etc. written between the transferor and the transferee, the transfer price of real estate shall be replaced by the goods price to be paid by the transferor to the transferee, loans, lease deposit, etc., and the remaining balance shall be paid in cash. Thus, the disposition calculated based on such fact
2012Revocation of disposition of revocation of imposition of capital gains tax, etc.
Park AA
Head of Sungnam Tax Office
January 23, 2013
February 6, 2013
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
On September 1, 201, the head of Sungnam District Tax Office, and the head of Sungnam District Tax Office imposed capital gains tax of 000 won for the transfer income tax of 2005 on September 1, 201 and imposed income tax of 000 won for the local income tax of 000 won on November 10, 201, shall all be revoked (the plaintiff is subject to imposition of capital gains tax of 000 won for the transfer income tax of 2005 as of February 20, 201 by the head of Sungnam District Tax Office and imposition of capital gains tax of 00 won for the education tax of 2005 as of February 20, 201, but the head of Sungnam District Tax Office claimed the imposition of capital gains tax of 000 won for the transfer income tax of 205 as of September 1, 201, and the head of Sungnam District Tax Office claimed the imposition of capital gains tax of 000 won for the above October 10, 20101.
1. Details of the disposition;
(a)the imposition of transfer income tax on B and the filing of objections by B;
(1) On February 25, 2005, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the auction procedure of real estate rent in the name of Cheongju District Court, Cheongju District Court, 2003, 11239, with respect to the neighborhood living facilities of 000 00 Ma-dong and 476 m2 and 3 m3 m2 above ground (hereinafter collectively referred to as "multi-point real estate"), and on June 20, 2005, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on June 1, 2005 under the name of MaE, and on August 31, 2005, the preliminary return of tax base of transfer income in the name of Cheongju District Court, Cheongju District Court, Cheongju District Court, Cheongju District Court, 2000 m200 won.
(2) The Director of the District Tax Office having jurisdiction over the domicile of the EE conducted a tax investigation into the acquisition of the EE, confirmed that the EE acquired the pertinent real estate in KRW 000, and notified the Director of the District Tax Office having jurisdiction over the domicile of the BB of such taxation data.
(3) On May 30, 201, the head of the Nowon Tax Office determined the transfer value of the pertinent real estate as KRW 000, and corrected and notified the transfer income tax of KRW 000 on May 30, 201 (hereinafter “previous disposition”).
(4) On June 10, 2011, thisB filed an objection to the effect that the transfer income tax on the previous disposition should be imposed on the Plaintiff, the actual owner of the real estate at issue, and the Seoul Regional Tax Office rendered a decision to revoke the previous disposition by determining the actual owner of the real estate at issue as the Plaintiff on July 8, 2011.
B. Imposition of capital gains tax against the Plaintiff by the Defendants
(1) On September 1, 2011, the head of Sungnam Tax Office notified the Plaintiff of the aforementioned taxation data by the head of the Seoul District Tax Office, deeming that the transfer income from the pertinent real estate belongs to the Plaintiff, thereby correcting and notifying the Plaintiff of the transfer income tax amount of KRW 000 (including additional tax) for the year 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “instant first disposition”).
(2) On November 10, 201, the head of Sung-nam City branch office notified the National Tax Service of the data related to the first disposition (hereinafter referred to as "second disposition", and "each of the dispositions in this case") imposed and notified the Plaintiff of the local income tax amount of KRW 00 (limited to the resident tax under Article 172 subparagraph 3 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9924, Jan. 1, 201) and Article 173 (2) of the former Local Tax Act) on the Plaintiff.
C. Implementation of the pre-trial procedure
On December 5, 2011, the Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the first disposition and filed a request for examination, but the Commissioner of the National Tax Service dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for examination on February 0, 2012.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute shall be as follows: evidence Nos. 1 to 4, evidence Nos. 1 to 1, and evidence Nos. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate
A. The plaintiff's assertion
The transfer value of the key real estate calculated by the Defendant Sungnam Tax Office includes KRW 000,000, and KRW 000,000, and KRW 000,000, and KRW 000,00,000, which the Plaintiff should pay to HaF, prior to the transfer of the key real estate from MaF, the Plaintiff did not receive the Ma Planning prior to the transfer of the key real estate, and the transfer value of the key real estate is KRW 00,00, and the transfer value of the key real estate is 00, and the respective dispositions of the Defendants, different from this, are unlawful.
B. Relevant statutes
It is as shown in the attached Form.
C. Determination
According to the 0th 1st 0th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 0th 0th 0th 0th 0th 0th 0th 0th 0th 00 0th 0th 0th 000 0th 0th 0th 000 0th 0th 0th 000 0th 0th 00 0th 0th 000 0th 0th 1st 000 0th 0th 00 0th 1st 2006th 1st 0th 0th 6th 0th 200 0th 0th 200 0th 0th 00 0th 2002th 1st 0th 200 0th 0th 200 2th 0th 6th 2002
D. Sub-committee
Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit, and each of the dispositions of the defendants are legitimate.
3. Conclusion
Then, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.