[특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(인정된죄명:조세범처벌법위반),방위세법위반][공1991.10.1.(905),2379]
The case where the wife calculated the amount of evaded tax by calculating the transfer income tax pursuant to the standard market price on the ground that the transfer transaction of land sold to two years only after purchasing the forest land under the husband's name was not an speculative transaction, and then calculating the amount of the transfer income tax accordingly.
The case where the wife purchased the forest land under the husband's name on December 12, 1982 under the condition that the forest land was designated as a reserved land for replotting and calculated the evaded tax amount by calculating the transfer income tax amount based on the standard market price, instead of the actual transaction price, on the ground that the transfer transaction of land sold around January 1, 1985 does not fall under one of the speculative transactions prescribed in Article 72 (3) of the Regulations on the Management of Property Tax (amended by the National Tax Service Directive No. 980 of Jan. 26, 1987) of the former National Tax Service Directive No.
Article 9(1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, Articles 23(4) and 45(1)1 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4281, Dec. 31, 1990); Article 170(4)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 12767, Aug. 1, 1989); Article 72(3) of the former Regulations on the Management of Property Tax Investigation under Article 916 of the National Tax Service Directive (amended by the National Tax Service Directive No. 980, Jan. 26, 1989)
Defendant
Prosecutor
Attorney Jung-jin
Seoul High Court Decision 89No1098 delivered on December 7, 1990
The appeal is dismissed.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
Article 72(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 12767 of Aug. 1, 1989) provides for specific types of transactions subject to speculation pursuant to Article 170(4)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 12767 of Aug. 1, 1989), which provides for the specific types of transactions subject to speculation pursuant to Article 916 of the National Tax Service Directive (amended by the National Tax Service Directive No. 980 of Jan. 26, 1987), provides for ① a type of speculative transaction and short-term sale of real estate in a state of not being acquired for the purpose of speculation, ② a transaction involving a disguised manufacturer's involvement in the transaction process, ③ a transaction that acquired and resells real estate and rights to real estate by a bona fide consumer, ④ other transactions corresponding to subparagraphs 1 through 3, which are objectively recognized as speculation transactions, and thus, five types of transactions are not considered as speculation transactions.
On December 20, 1982, the court below stated that the defendant purchased the land transfer transaction in the name of his husband in the condition that the land substitution area was designated as a planned land substitution area of 1,908 square meters at 1,908.6 square meters, Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Geumcheon-gu, in the name of his husband, but around January 15, 198, the land transfer transaction in this case sold to seven persons, such as the non-indicted Park Byung-gun, etc. on or around January 15, 1985 does not fall under any one of the speculative transactions stipulated in the above regulations on the transaction of property tax, and therefore, in calculating the transfer margin, it should not be based on the actual transaction price, but should be based on the standard market price. Accordingly, the court below calculated the defendant's evaded tax amount by calculating the transfer margin according to the standard market price and accordingly calculated the amount of transfer income tax accordingly. In light of the records, it is just that the court below did not fall under the real estate transaction in this case.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice) Kim Sang-won