Tax Tribunal 2012west 1421

Where the amount of compensation of real estate is received as bonds, the appraised loss shall not be deducted from necessary expenses or acquisition value.

Since necessary expenses not listed in the Income Tax Act can not be arbitrarily deducted from the transfer value, and consideration of the time value at the time of expropriation compensation with bonds can be already reflected, the appraised loss amount cannot be deducted from the necessary expenses and acquisition value.

2012Gudan20529 Revocation of Disposition rejecting a request for rectification of capital gains tax

AAA

Head of Seodaemun Tax Office

September 11, 2013

October 16, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s refusal to rectify capital gains tax against the Plaintiff on January 5, 2012 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 28, 2009, the Plaintiff transferred OO-dong 517-22, 517-23, and 517-34 land to the Korea Land and Housing Corporation on the ground of expropriation, received cash OOOO and OOO-23, and received cash OO-2 at par value. On January 5, 2010, 201, the Plaintiff sold the above bonds to OO-2, and received the remaining OO-2, less total amount of O-2, such as OO-2, 517-23, and 517-34.

B. The Plaintiff reported and paid the KRW OO on the premise that the transfer value of each of the above lands is an OOO won, but filed a claim for correction on December 9, 201 to seek a refund of KRW OOO based on the fact that the difference in the appraisal value of the bonds should be deducted from the transfer value, but the Defendant rejected it on January 5, 201 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff underwent the pre-trial procedure.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1 to 5, Eul 1 to 3

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

Article 24 (2) of the Income Tax Act provides that the income amount shall be calculated on the basis of the market price at the time of the transaction (Article 24 (2) of the Income Tax Act) and Article 118 of the Income Tax Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the transfer income tax. However, as long as the transfer value of the relevant assets should be calculated on the basis of the actual transaction price or the standard market price, in case of expropriation, the transfer value of assets, other than money, such as compensation bonds, shall not be calculated on the basis of applying Article 24 (2) of the Income Tax Act mutatis mutandis (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du18536, supra). In addition, necessary expenses not listed in the Income Tax Act can not be arbitrarily deducted from the transfer gains, and consideration of the time value is reflected in determining the transfer value in case of expropriation compensation by bonds. Therefore, in light of the fact that it is impossible to re-determine the current value, the transfer value of the instant land shall be deemed an OO member, the actual amount agreed at the time of transaction price or payment.

Therefore, the instant disposition, which was made on the same premise, is lawful.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.