[증여세부과처분취소][공1987.7.1.(803),980]
The validity of a disposition of taxation not stated in a notice of payment of gift tax and a statement of calculation of tax base and amount, or not attached a statement of calculation.
The purport of Article 9(1) of the Inheritance Tax Collection Act, Articles 34-5, 25, and 25-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 19(1) of the same Act, which provides that a tax notice shall be given along with tax base and calculation statement of tax amount in a disposition imposing gift tax, is to ensure fairness in tax administration by allowing the tax authorities to exclude, exercise careful and reasonable taxation as to the scope of property on which the basis of calculating the tax base and amount of tax of gift tax is based in accordance with the large principle of no taxation without law prescribed by the Constitution and the Framework Act on National Taxes, thereby ensuring fairness in tax administration, and at the same time, at the same time, to inform the taxpayers of the detailed details of the taxation disposition and to ensure convenience in appeal. Thus, if a tax notice does not state the tax base and calculation statement of tax amount in a disposition imposing gift tax, or did not attach
Articles 34-5, 25, and 25-2 of the Inheritance Tax Act; Article 19(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act; Article 9(1) of the National Tax Collection Act
Supreme Court Decision 81Nu139 Decided March 23, 1982, 82Nu350 Decided September 13, 1983, Supreme Court Decision 83Nu602 Decided February 14, 1984
Attorney Lee Ji-hoon et al.
Head of the Do Tax Office
Seoul High Court Decision 84Gu393 delivered on December 28, 1984
The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.
1. We examine the Plaintiff’s attorney’s grounds of appeal.
(a) On the first ground for appeal:
According to the records, the plaintiff's legal representative asserted on September 18, 1984 at the first date for pleading of the court below, pursuant to Article 5 of the Private School Act and Articles 3 through 6 of the Decree on the Standards for School Property of the school juristic person pursuant to the above Article 5 of the Private School Act, and the school juristic person must have fundamental property for profit above the prescribed standards. The basic property for profit-making is restricted by Article 28 of the Private School Act. The basic property for profit-making by the school juristic person in 925 across the country is a major class of basic property for profit-making by the school juristic person. However, if the school juristic person has completed the procedure for increasing its property contributed to the school juristic person's educational purpose for profit-making purpose business, it is widely known that the basic property for profit-making, including the founder of the school juristic person concerned, and the tax office did not have any proposed gift tax taxation except for the disposition of this case, since it has long been used for the purpose of contribution under the Inheritance Tax Act.
Therefore, the court below should have judged that the taxation of this case should be judged by the court below, but it did not make any decision on this issue according to the reasoning of the judgment below, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and therefore, it is reasonable to point this out.
(b) On the fourth ground;
According to the provision of Article 9(1) of the National Tax Collection Act, when the head of a tax office or the head of a Si/Gun intends to collect national taxes, he/she shall issue to taxpayers a notice specifying the items of taxation, amount of tax, basis for calculation thereof, time limit for payment and place for payment of national taxes. Meanwhile, Articles 34-5, 25, and 25-2 of the Inheritance Tax Act and Article 19(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that the Government shall determine the tax base and amount of gift tax and notify the donee of the determination thereof if there is no declaration or if the declaration is deemed unreasonable. In this case, the above provision provides that the notice shall be accompanied by the detailed statement of calculation of the tax base and amount of gift tax to be attached to the gift tax in accordance with the Constitution and the Framework Act on National Taxes. The purport of the provision is that the Defendant’s notification of the tax base and amount of gift tax should not be made within the scope of the property for which the tax base and amount of tax are calculated pursuant to Article 9(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Collection Act.
However, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below's argument that the plaintiff's attorney's failure to properly state the grounds for taxation because the subject matter of taxation is not clear in the notice of the gift tax in this case's notice of the gift tax in this case's disposition is erroneous, and thus rejected the argument, it is reasonable to conclude that the court below erred by misapprehending the above legal principles of the inheritance tax law.
2. Therefore, the judgment of the court below cannot be reversed in each of the above points. Thus, without further proceeding to decide on other points, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court which is the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)