beta
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016. 03. 17. 선고 2015누47371 판결

상증세법 제35조 저가양수에 해당하는지 여부의 판단 기준이 되는 취득가액은 저가양수자의 실취득가액임[국승]

Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit

Seoul Administrative Court-2014-Gu Partnership-65202 ( October 29, 2015)

Case Number of the previous trial

Cho High Court Decision 2013west 4741 (No. 21, 2014)

Title

The acquisition value which serves as the standard for determining whether it falls under a low price acquisition under Article 35 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act shall be the actual acquisition value by the low price acquisitor

Summary

The acquisition value which serves as the basis for determining whether the acquisition of shares constitutes a low-price acquisition under Article 35 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act shall be deemed as the actual acquisition value recorded in the contract and the confirmation of the fact of transaction, and the revised transfer value of the low-price transferor calculated based on the market price by applying Article 101 of the Income Tax Act cannot be

Related statutes

Article 101 of the Income Tax Act by Wrongful Calculation

Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act Article 35(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act: Donations of profits from transfer at low prices

Cases

2015Nu47371

Plaintiff

Song AA

Defendant

○ Head of tax office

Conclusion of Pleadings

on 25, 2016

Imposition of Judgment

on October 17, 2016

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. On May 1, 2013, the imposition of gift tax on the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's judgment is as follows. Thus, it is cited by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for adding some contents as follows.

○ The following shall be added to the 7th sentence below the judgment of the first instance court.

The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the Plaintiff: (a) ○○○○○○, the amount of transfer indicated in the share transfer contract (Evidence A No. 8) was denied by another tax authority and the amount of transfer was corrected to ○○○○○○○; and (b) accordingly, the Defendant bears the burden of proving the new fact necessary to apply the other amount to the cost of transfer. However, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the head of △△○○○○○ and the local income tax imposed the transfer value of the instant shares on KimB by deeming the transfer value of the instant shares to ○○○○○○ and the local income tax as the transfer value was denied; (c) not because the establishment of the authenticity of the share transfer contract made between the Plaintiff and KimB was denied; and (d) said, the Plaintiff’s transfer income under the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9270 of Dec. 26, 2008) was deemed to have been the object of transfer income under the Income Tax Act by wrongful calculation of transfer income under the Income Tax Act.

In addition, the Plaintiff asserts that even if the authenticity of the share transfer contract (Evidence A) is recognized, since there are special circumstances to deny the contents and value of evidence stated in the share transfer contract and the source for confirmation of transaction transaction (Evidence B No. 5), the above share transfer contract (Evidence A) cannot be deemed taxation materials. However, the instant disposition is imposed by deeming that the Plaintiff acquired the shares of this case, the value of which is ○○○○○ Won per share ± ○○○○○○○ (=○○○○○ ±○○) and thus donated property benefits equivalent to the difference as a donation of gift tax. However, in the process of imposing capital gains tax on KimB, the Plaintiff asserted that the share transfer value of this case was deemed as ○○○○○○○○ upon the basis of the fact that the share transfer value was deemed as ○○○○○○ upon the basis of the fact that the transfer value of this case was deemed as ○○○○, even if it was actually paid by himself as the price of the share transfer. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion alone is difficult to deny the content or evidence of the share transfer contract.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

(c)