Cho High Court Decision 201Du5154 (Law No. 31, 2012)

such report may not be deemed to have been filed for any inevitable reason that cannot be divided.

It cannot be deemed that there was a report on division of the claim for provisional collection, on the ground that there was a report on division of the claim for provisional collection, not the inherited property, and that there was a report on the inevitable reason that it was impossible to divide the claim for provisional collection, and that the disposition excluded the spouse's inheritance deduction is legitimate.

2012Guhap290666 Revocation of Disposition of Levying Inheritance Tax

KimA

The Director of the Pacific District Office

March 22, 2013

April 12, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff shall bear the costs of lawsuit.

The Defendant’s each disposition of KRW 000, KRW 1200, and KRW 000 against the Plaintiff on November 7, 201, each disposition of KRW 000 against the Plaintiff on November 7, 201, each of which exceeds KRW 000, KRW 1B, and USD 000, shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 21, 2010, the deceased Jong-young (hereinafter referred to as "the decedent") who was the representative director of the DDR (hereinafter referred to as "DDR") was the spouse of the plaintiff and his children, and died on May 21, 2010." (B) The decedent held 00 won of the DDR's claim for reimbursement (hereinafter referred to as "the claim for reimbursement") before the death, and the decedent paid wages to foreign workers on behalf of DDR, and held 00 won of the DDR's substitute claim for reimbursement (hereinafter referred to as "the substitute claim in this case"). On November 26, 2010, the plaintiff made the decedent's prior donation claim and substitute payment claim to DDR, and made a report on the inheritance tax by including it in M, and filed a report on it as follows.

C The taxable value of inherited property: 000 won (=the value of inherited property + the value of donated property + 0000 won - the amount of debts, etc.)

O Amount of inheritance deduction: 000 won (=spouse spouse inheritance deduction of 000 won + 000 won in a lump sum deduction)

O Tax base of inheritance tax: 000 won (=000 won for taxable value of inheritance - 000 won for inheritance deduction amount)

O Donation tax amount deducted: 000 won

D. From May 201 to August 201, the Seoul Regional Tax Office: (a) conducted an inheritance tax investigation from around May 2011 to around August 2011, deducted the instant claim for provisional payments and substitute payments from the value of donated property; (b) added them to the general inheritance value; and (c) assessed them as the debt of DNA to reduce the appraised value of DNA stocks from KRW 000 to KRW 00; and (d) again calculated the instant inheritance tax base as follows; (b) denied the deductible amount of KRW 000; and (c) notified the Defendant thereof.

C Taxable value of inherited property: 000 won

O Amount of inheritance deduction: 000 won (a spouse's deduction from 000 won to 000 won shall be denied)

O Inheritance Tax Base: 000 won (=000 won -0000 won)

O Amount of gift tax deduction 000 won denial

E. Accordingly, according to the purport notified by the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office, the Defendant determined 000 won of inheritance tax (additional tax) according to the purport notified by the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office, and imposed 000 won (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the Plaintiff and HaBB1 PCC, depending on the inheritance shares, and on the Plaintiff and HaCC, respectively (hereinafter “the instant disposition”).

F. On November 23, 2011, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed a request with the Tax Tribunal for the trial on November 23, 201, and on May 31, 2012, the said request was dismissed. The purport of each of the evidence Nos. 9, and evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including evidence Nos. 9 and 1 through 3 (including evidence No. 1)

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

(1) Regarding the instant provisional deposit claims

(A) Defendant’s assertion

Pursuant to Article 19(2) and (3) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11609, Jan. 1, 2013; hereinafter referred to as the "former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act") in order to obtain a spouse's inheritance deduction, an inheritor shall report the split-off of inherited property to the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the place for tax payment by the due date for split-off of inherited property, and where an inheritor is unable to divide inherited property by the due date due to extenuating circumstances, the inheritor shall report the split-off of inherited property by the due date only when the inheritor reports extenuating circumstances within the above period, and the Plaintiff shall not additionally report the split-off of inherited property

(B) Plaintiff’s assertion

If the claim for provisional collection of this case is considered to be DNA donated property prior to it, the plaintiff only succeeds to shares valuable to the two shares, and if the claim for provisional collection of this case is considered to be inherited property, shares of this case are without value, and DNA claims are inherited only, and it is also in the relationship between the provisional collection of this case and the selective collection of this case. However, on November 26, 2010, although the plaintiff's legal assessment of the claim for provisional collection of this case was different, it should be calculated as donated property prior to it, and the tax base for provisional collection of this case should be added to the plaintiff, and the amount of provisional collection of this case should be reported within the period of 7 months under the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and it should be deemed that there is no possibility that the plaintiff can report the division of inheritance tax of this case within the period of 19 (2) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act within the period of 19 (3) of the latter Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, even if it is impossible for the plaintiff to report the division of this case.

(2) Plaintiff’s assertion regarding the instant substitute payment claim

In light of the financial standing, etc. of the decedent, the decedent did not have the intent to recover the claim of this case from the DNA, and thus, the decedent is a prior donation property and the amount of the gift tax of this case should be deducted from the amount of inheritance tax calculated, but the disposition of this case made on a premise different from that of the amount of gift tax is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Regarding the instant provisional deposit claims

Until May 31, 201, the time limit for the split-off of the spouse under Article 19(2) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, the Plaintiff did not have any dispute between the parties to the return on split-off of the instant claim or on inevitable grounds that are not possible to divide-off. Furthermore, considering the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant claim for provisional donation and Drat will be inherited selectively, the Plaintiff reported that the instant claim for provisional donation were donated property, not inherited property, and that there was a report on split-off of Drat’s shares at the time, and that there was no possibility that the Plaintiff would not report the split-off or split-off of the instant claim within the time limit for the inheritance inheritance under Article 19(2) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and that there was no possibility that the Plaintiff would have reported the split-off or split-off of the inheritance claim within the time limit for the above spouse split-off under Article 19(2) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and that there was no possibility that the Plaintiff would have reported the inheritance premium or split-off-off.

(2) Regarding the instant substitute payment claim

In the health of the decedent’s donation of the instant substitute payment claim before the death of the decedent, the testimony by the witness headA alone is insufficient to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the said donation, and it cannot be deemed that the instant substitute payment claim is a prior donation property. Therefore, the instant disposition denying the deduction of KRW 000 as the amount of gift tax on the instant substitute payment claim is lawful on the same premise.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit, and it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.