[양도소득세등부과처분취소][공1987.7.1.(803),1007]
In applying Article 170(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, whether or not the data submitted in administrative litigation procedures can be used as the confirmation data of actual transaction price.
In applying Article 170(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, one of the transfer and acquisition values is a transaction with the State, a local government, or other corporations, the actual transaction price is confirmed, and the other is a transaction between private persons, the data to confirm the actual transaction price can be used as data for the judgment, including not only the documents submitted in the pre-trial proceedings but also those submitted in the administrative litigation proceedings of the case.
Article 170 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act
Supreme Court Decision 86Nu752 Decided February 24, 1987
Plaintiff
Head of Sungbuk Tax Office
Seoul High Court Decision 86Gu375 delivered on December 22, 1986
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
According to the facts established by the court below, as the plaintiff purchased the land in this case from Busan City on December 27, 1982 and sold it to the non-party on April 14, 1983, and did not make a preliminary return or final return on transfer marginal profits from the transfer, the defendant imposed the tax of this case by using the standard market price determined pursuant to the proviso of Article 170 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act as transfer value on the ground that the transaction with a local government is confirmed, but the transfer price cannot be confirmed, and the transfer price cannot be confirmed. Accordingly, the court below determined that the transfer price of this case is illegal since the acquisition of the land in this case is a transaction with a local government and it is confirmed that the transfer price at the time of acquisition is confirmed, and the transfer price at the time of acquisition is confirmed according to the macro evidence, there is no room to apply the proviso of Article 170 (1) of the Enforcement Decree to be applied only to the case where the actual transaction price is not confirmed, and the transfer price and tax should be imposed on the land in this case.
In light of the records, the above fact-finding of the court below is just, and in applying Article 170 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act as in this case, any of the transfer and acquisition values with the state, local government or other corporations is confirmed, and the other is a private person's transaction which can confirm the actual transaction price, the data to confirm the actual transaction price can be used as the data to confirm the actual transaction price, including not only the documents submitted in the prior trial procedure, but also those submitted in the administrative litigation procedure of this case (see Supreme Court Decision 86Nu752 delivered on February 24, 1987).
The judgment of the court below with the same purport is just and the argument of the dissenting opinion is groundless.
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 Man-hee (Presiding Justice)