[양도소득세부과처분취소][공1985.2.1.(745),182]
The burden of proving that there is a nominal title of income and a person who actually obtains such income.
Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes stipulates the principle of substantial taxation, and Article 7(1) of the Income Tax Act provides that in case where the ownership of income is only nominal and there is another person who has actually earned such income, the income tax shall be imposed on the person who has actually earned such income pursuant to this Act pursuant to Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes. As such, there is a burden of proving that the ownership of income is merely nominal and is a separate person who has actually earned such income.
Article 14 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 7 (1) of the Income Tax Act
Plaintiff
Head of Seodaemun Tax Office
Seoul High Court Decision 83Gu374 delivered on June 14, 1984
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
We examine the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal.
1. Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes stipulates the principle of substantial taxation, and Article 7(1) of the Income Tax Act provides that in case where there is a person who has actually earned such income, it shall impose income tax on the person who has actually earned such income under this Act, pursuant to Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes. The above fact that there is only a nominal title of income and there is a separate person who has actually earned such income shall bear the burden of proof on the claimant.
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the shares in the forest land in question, which became the transfer of ownership in the plaintiff's name, are based on title trust and are actually owned by the non-party. In light of the records, the court below's examination of the evidence prepared by the court below is without merit since the court below did not err by the rules of evidence, such as the theory of appeal, and this issue
2. On the other hand, the plaintiff did not receive the notice of the disposition of this case. However, according to the records, the defendant's notice of tax payment is recognized as being served lawfully by service by public notice, so the above issue is groundless.
In addition, even if the Plaintiff is the Nonparty and co-owners, the Plaintiff invested KRW 4,400,00 and the Nonparty 10,000,000 among gains from transfer, the Plaintiff’s income portion out of gains from transfer should be calculated in accordance with the above investment ratio. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles of the Income Tax Act or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations. However, according to the facts duly established by the court below, the Plaintiff and the Nonparty completed the registration of co-ownership by sharing the forest of this case equally shares. Thus, even if there is a difference between the share ratio of the investment to purchase the forest of this case and this difference as the theory of lawsuit, the Plaintiff does not have the title or substance within the scope of the share, or is the person to whom the income belongs. Therefore, there is no ground for appeal.
3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)