[양도소득세등부과처분취소][공1992.11.1.(931),2921]
(a) Point of starting extinctive prescription of the right to impose and collect transfer income tax (= day after the final return expires);
B. Whether the reason that the tax authority did not know of the transfer from the person liable for tax payment because the expected return on the profit accruing from the transfer of the income tax or the final return on the tax base has an impact on
A. If the transfer price of land was received in full by May 5, 1975 under the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 2933 of Dec. 22, 1976), the time of transfer of the above land shall be deemed to be May 5, 1975 at the latest. The taxation authority can impose and collect the transfer income tax from March 1, 1976, the day following the expiration date of the final return on the capital gains. Thus, the extinctive prescription of the right to impose and collect the transfer income tax on the above capital gains is proceeding from this point.
B. Even if the tax authority knew of such transfer until the transfer registration of ownership was made due to the transfer of the above land because there is no provisional return on the profit from the transfer of the income tax or the final return on the return on the return of the transfer of the above land from the taxpayer, such reason does not constitute a legal disability that makes it impossible to exercise the right, and thus,
A.B. Article 27 of the Framework Act on National Taxes: Article 100(1) and Article 27 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 2933, Dec. 22, 1976); Article 166(b) of the Civil Act; Article 168 of the Civil Act
A. (B) Supreme Court en banc Decision 84Nu572 delivered on December 26, 1984 (Gong1985,272) (Gong1987,996). Supreme Court Decision 85Nu212 delivered on May 12, 1987 (Gong1985,1205), Supreme Court Decision 84Nu371 delivered on December 10, 1985 (Gong1986,247), Supreme Court Decision 80Da2626 delivered on January 29, 1982 (Gong1982,257).
Plaintiff
The director of Gwangju Tax Office
Gwangju High Court Decision 91Gu2280 delivered on April 24, 1992
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
On April 4, 1975, the court below held that the plaintiff sold the land of this case to the non-party on April 4, 1975 at KRW 1,500,000 and that the plaintiff received the full payment from the Dong on May 5 of that year is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law such as incomplete deliberation or violation of the rules of evidence.
In addition, according to Article 27 (1) of the former Income Tax Act which was enforced at the time of the transfer of the land in this case, the transfer or acquisition time of assets shall be the date of concluding the relevant contract and receiving part of the price other than the down payment. Article 100 (1) of the same Act provides that a resident who has the transfer income in the current year shall report the transfer income tax base to the Government from February 1 to 2 of the year following the current year as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. As determined by the court below, if the plaintiff received the transfer price of the land in this case until May 5, 1975, the transfer time of the land in this case shall be deemed to be the date of the transfer, and the defendant shall be deemed to have been from March 1, 1976, the day after the expiration date of the final return on the transfer income in this case, which shall not be deemed to have been affected by the final return on the transfer income in this case from March 1, 1976 to the day after the expiration date of the final return on the transfer income in this case.
In the same purport, the court below's decision is justified in holding that the tax disposition of this case, which was made thereafter, constitutes an invalidation as a matter of course, since five years have already elapsed since March 1, 1976, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on the extinctive prescription of tax claims. All arguments are without merit.
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 Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice) Kim Sang-ho (Presiding Justice)