[양도소득세등부과처분취소][공1980.7.1.(635),12856]
Where a transferor of land fails to submit a payment receipt for the acquisition even though the preliminary return on transfer gains, or to impose capital gains tax;
Even if a transferor of land did not submit a receipt for the purchase price of the land of this case to the Plaintiff, or did not receive a reply to the sale price from the person who sold the land of this case to the Plaintiff, such reason does not constitute a ground for refusing the calculation of the actual transaction price by the preliminary return of transfer margin.
Article 95 of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 2933 of Dec. 22, 1976), Article 143 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act
Plaintiff
The transfer of the litigation performer, a lecture officer, and Kim Tae-tae of the Seoul Southern District Director;
Seoul High Court Decision 79Gu138 delivered on October 23, 1979
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
The grounds of appeal by Defendant Litigation Performers are examined.
According to Article 95 of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 2933, Dec. 22, 1976) which enters into force at the time of the transfer of the land, a resident who transfers assets shall report the transfer margin calculated under Article 23(2) of the Act to the Government by the end of the month following the transfer date under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. In the case where the transfer margin is made pursuant to Article 85(1) of the Act which was under Article 143(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the transfer margin shall be reported to the Government by the end of the month following the month following the transfer date. The plaintiff did not submit to the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the place of residence the documents under each subparagraph of Article 138 (the certified copy of the resident registration record card, the contract for the sale of the relevant assets, the land and building ledger, the cost of improvement, the capital expenditure statement, the depreciation cost statement) and the price of the assets which the plaintiff did not have any duty to submit to the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the transfer price at the time of the transfer price.
As such, the court below's decision to the same purport is just and there is no violation of law, such as misunderstanding of the provisions of tax law or litigation.
The issue is groundless.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Yu Tae-hee (Presiding Justice)