실지거래가액을 확인할 수 없어 환산취득가액을 적용한 것은 적법[국승]
Seocho 2010west 1447 (Law No. 18, 2011)
If the conversion acquisition value is applied because it is impossible to confirm the actual transaction price, it is legitimate.
In full view of the fact that the cause of acquisition in the certified copy of the register is recorded as a transaction rather than a payment in kind, and there is no objective data to verify the existence and content of a payment in kind, it cannot be recognized that the land was acquired in lieu of the repayment in lieu of the loan, and it is legitimate to apply the conversion acquisition
2011Gudan14367 Disposition of revocation of imposition of capital gains tax
United StatesA
head of Sung Dong Tax Office
September 21, 2011
October 26, 2011
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 164,439,360 against the Plaintiff on February 1, 2010 shall be revoked.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. From thisB on September 30, 198, the Plaintiff acquired 4,058 shares in OOri 00 Ori 4,058 among 4,058, and 00-25,312 of the same Ri prior to division, 25,312, and 5,69 shares in each of the above lands. OOri-gun Ori 00-0, 5,699 (hereinafter referred to as "each of the above real estate") for reasons of partition of co-owned property as of April 2, 1990, OOri-gun 912, 00-0, 5,69 (hereinafter referred to as "each of the above real estate"); the above 00-0-0, 00-0, 300-1, 00-1, 00-1, 300-1, 000-1, 300-1, 200-1,000.
B. On May 23, 2007, the Plaintiff transferred each of the instant real estate to DDD Co., Ltd. with KRW 290 million, and reported and paid the transfer income tax of KRW 20 million calculated by subtracting the acquisition value of each of the instant real estate from KRW 250 million to the Defendant.
C. On February 1, 2010, the Defendant calculated the acquisition price of each real estate of this case as the conversion price (34,522,194 won) under Article 97(1)1 (b) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8825, Dec. 31, 2007; hereinafter the same) on the ground that it cannot be confirmed the actual transaction price at the time of acquisition of each real estate of this case. Accordingly, the Defendant issued the instant disposition imposing and notifying the difference with the voluntary payment after calculating and correcting the transfer income tax attributed to the year 2007 of the Plaintiff.
[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 3, 6, 7, 11 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1, 3, and 6
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion
(1) The transfer value of each of the instant real estate was 290 million won. The Defendant imposed capital gains tax with the tax base of 361,162,637 won. Since it is impossible to do so more than the transfer value, the instant disposition is unlawful.
(2) While working for the early 1980s, the Plaintiff became aware of this BB while making a loan to thisB several times, and as a result of the settlement of the loan to thisB around March 25, 1984, the Plaintiff reached KRW 250,000,000. On the other hand, the BB acquired a Ri 00,000 forest land, such as OO Ri 00,000 land, before the split-off on June 8, 1988, but transferred a portion of the land to the Plaintiff instead of paying the above loan, and the Plaintiff thereafter acquired the ownership of each real estate in the division of the co-owned property. Accordingly, the acquisition value of each real estate of this case shall be KRW 250,500,000,000,000, and the disposition of this case otherwise reported is unlawful.
(b) Related statutes;
It is as shown in the attached Form.
C. Determination
(1) First, according to the allegation that the instant disposition was more tax base than the transfer value of each of the instant real estate and was unlawful, the Plaintiff’s tax base amount for the transfer income tax for the year 2007 (361,162,637 won) higher than the transfer value of each of the instant real estate is higher than the transfer value of the instant real estate, and the Plaintiff’s basic deduction for the transfer income (108,540,500 won) was made after adding the transfer income of the instant real estate for the year 207 (255,122,137 won) to the transfer income of the instant real estate for the year 207 and the Plaintiff transferred on December 28, 207 (108,540,000 won) for the real estate located in Seoyangdong-dong, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (2,500,000 won). Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.
(2) Next, we examine the Plaintiff’s assertion that the acquisition value of each real estate of this case is KRW 250 million and KRW 20 million. The following circumstances, i.e., the Plaintiff’s share acquisition cause in the registry of each real estate of this case, i.e., the Plaintiff’s transfer on September 24, 198, as alleged by the Plaintiff, is not indicated as a substitute payment, and there is no specific assertion as to whether the Plaintiff had any claim against thisB, and there is no evidence to verify the existence and amount of loans, such as the loan certificate prepared between the Plaintiff and B, the sales contract for each real estate of this case, the payment contract for accord, and the financial transactions between two, and there is no objective evidence to verify the existence of the payment contract for this case, and the existence of the payment contract for this case’s real estate and the real estate price for each of the above 00 million real estate acquired by the Plaintiff for a long time among social life, and each of the above 100 billion real estate acquired for each of the above 0000 billion real estate shares and each of this case’s transfer.
(3) Therefore, the disposition of this case where the defendant calculated the acquisition value of each real estate of this case as the conversion value pursuant to Article 97 (1) 1 (b) of the former Income Tax Act and imposed the transfer income tax belonging to 2007 is legitimate. The plaintiff's above arguments are without merit.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.