실지거래가액으로 신고한 양도가액은 실가가 사실과 다를 경우에도 기준시가로 경정결정 할 수 없음[국승]
The transfer value reported as actual transaction value shall not be determined as the standard market price even if the actual price is different from the fact.
In case where the final return is filed and the actual transaction value is confirmed by the chief of the district tax office or the director of the regional tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment because such confirmed value is different from the fact, the
Article 96 of the former Income Tax Act
Article 97 of the former Income Tax Act
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 68,135,530 and resident tax of KRW 6,813,550, which the Defendant imposed on the Plaintiff on October 1, 2007, shall be revoked.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On September 13, 1999, the Plaintiff acquired the instant land at KRW 9,676,719 through an auction. On April 8, 2002, the Plaintiff reported the transfer income tax to Pyeongtaek-si Tax Office on April 29, 200 and reported the transfer value of KRW 66,00,000,000, and the acquisition value of KRW 99,677,000,000, and KRW 99,676,719,719 on April 29, 200.
B. On October 1, 2007, the Defendant reported the acquisition value of the instant land at KRW 234,850,000, the Defendant issued a corrective disposition imposing capital gains tax of KRW 36,062,381, and additional tax of KRW 32,149,612, and resident tax of KRW 6,813,550, which is added thereto, on the ground that the Plaintiff reported the transfer value of the instant land at the above amount.
[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Evidence No. 1 to No. 9, All purports of the pleading
2. The legality of disposition.
A. The plaintiff's assertion
As long as Article 96 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6781 of Dec. 18, 2002) provides that the transfer value of land shall be based on the standard market price at the time of the transfer of the relevant land in principle, the Defendant’s application of the actual transaction price without applying the transfer income tax to the Plaintiff is unlawful.
(b) Related statutes;
Article 96 of the former Income Tax Act
Article 97 of the former Income Tax Act
C. Determination
The proviso of Article 114 (4) of the Income Tax Act provides that, in case where a resident makes a preliminary or final return on a tax base of transfer income pursuant to Article 96 (1) 6 and the proviso of Article 97 (1) 1 (a) of the same Act, if the reported value is different from the fact and the head of a regional tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment or the director of a regional tax office confirms the actual transaction price, the confirmed value shall be the transfer value or the acquisition value, and thus, the defendant shall report the transfer value according to the actual transaction price, and if the reported transfer value is different from the fact, the confirmed value may be
3. Conclusion
Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.