Cho Jae-2016-China 4186 (Law No. 25, 2017)

The legitimacy of the assertion that there was no tax avoidance purpose in the nominal trust of shares

It is difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s proposal in light of the following: (a) document confirmation conducted for a corporation to issue stocks in 2013 and the tax investigation conducted for 2016 differs in subjects and objectives; (b) false cash loan is prepared to conceal that the Plaintiff’s title trust was a nominal share to the claimant’s siblings; and (c) Plaintiff’s penalty items directly donated Plaintiff’s shares to Plaintiff’s

Article 44 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

Incheon District Court-2017-Gu Partnership-51833 (Law No. 14, 20186)

EO

O Head of tax office

2018.05.24

oly 2018.14

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

(a) Relationship between parties, etc.;

주식회사 바○○○ 모터스(이하 '바○○○'이라 한다)는 1996. 3. 7. 설립되어 비□□□□코리아 주식회사로부터 자동차를 매입하여 국내소비자에게 판매하여 온 회사이다. 원고는 바○○○의 대표이사이고, 이○○, 이□□, 이△△(이하 '이○○ 외 2인'이라 한다)은 원고의 형제들이며, 이▤▤, 이▥▥, 이▦▦(이하 '이▤▤ 외 2인'이라 한다)은 원고의 자녀들이다.

(b) Paid-in capital increase and title trust of shares by ○○○○;

원고는 바○○○을 설립하면서 이○○ 외 2인, 안○○, 이▧▧, 양○○ 등에게 자신의 소유인 바○○○ 주식을 명의신탁하였다. 바○○○은 2005. 6. 29. 주식 200,000주의 유상증자(이하 '이 사건 유상증자'라 한다)를 실시하였는데, 원고는 그 유상증자에 이○○ 외 2인의 명의로 참여하여 신주인수 청약 및 신주인수대금 납입을 하고 이○○외 2인의 명의로 신주를 인수하였다. 한편, 이▤▤ 외 2인은 아래와 같이 이○○ 외 2인으로부터 바○○○의 주식을 증여받고 원고로부터 현금을 증여받았다면서 증여세를 신고・납부하였다.

(c) Confirmation of the details of changes in stocks;

On June 17, 2013, the director of the regional tax office of ○○○ has examined the statement of changes in stocks, etc. submitted to the ○○○○○○○ by means of the relevant post on or before the date of examining the statement of changes in stocks, etc., and it is difficult to confirm ○○○○’s sincere return and payment of taxes for the business year 2005 and the business year 2011 because the factual relations (such as the source of funds and facts of oil increase, donation, etc.) are unclear. By June 17, 2013, the director of the regional tax office sent an explanatory document (such as the document, etc. on the basis of a document, etc. on the calculation of the amount of one stock transaction) to explain the changes in stocks, etc. by mail. On or before July 2013, 2013, the director of the regional tax office sent an explanatory document to the Plaintiff by mail to explain the changes in stocks, etc.

The director of the regional tax office of ○○○○, from June 2013 to July 2013, confirmed the data submitted by the Plaintiff, etc., and concluded that the Plaintiff and the △△△△△△△△△△ used the funds of KRW 1 billion ( KRW 360 million, KRW 240 million, KRW 160 million, KRW 2000,000, KRW 1600,000,000, KRW 160,000,000, KRW 240,000,000, KRW 2000,000,000, KRW 2000,000) as of the acquisition of new shares at the time of the instant capital increase. Since the Plaintiff and the △△△△△△△△△○ used the funds as the funds for capital increase after borrowing money from the Plaintiff and the △△△△△△△△△△△△, it did not conclude the written confirmation of the title trust change between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff and the 2.

(d) Corporate tax investigation or gift tax investigation;

From January 13, 2016 to March 28, 2016, the director of the regional tax office of ○○○○○ has conducted an integrated investigation of corporate tax and other corporate tax with regard to ○○○○○ from January 13, 2016 to March 28, 2016. During that process, the head of the regional tax office verified that “this loan certificate is used only as evidentiary documents related to the investigation of the regional tax office and verifying that it is irrelevant to the actual transaction” on the back of the cash loan certificate (the Plaintiff, the obligor, the obligee, the obligee, △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△), among the supporting documents submitted at the time of confirming the change of stocks in 2013, the head of the regional tax office of ○○○○○○○, stating that “The actual owner of 52,800 shares, which is owned by the ○○○○○○○○ on the shareholder registry of the Plaintiff.”

Therefore, from March 11, 2016 to March 28, 2016, the director of the regional tax office of ○○○○○ (hereinafter “the director of the regional tax office”) selected the Plaintiff and two other persons as subjects of partial investigation of gift tax, and conducted an investigation into the process of issuing new shares to ○○○○ (hereinafter “the director of the regional tax office”). During that process, at the time of establishment of ○○○○ (hereinafter “the director of the regional tax office”), the Plaintiff included ○○ and two other persons as shareholders since the promoters were at least seven persons pursuant to the Commercial Act at the time of establishment of ○○○○ (hereinafter “the director of the regional tax office”). The director of the regional tax office received a written statement to the effect that ○○○ and two other persons (hereinafter “the tax investigation of gift tax”) that the Plaintiff acquired 128,000 new shares under the name of ○○ and two other persons (hereinafter “the director of the regional tax office”).

E. Imposition of gift tax by the Defendants and designation of joint taxpayers

The Defendants imposed, according to Article 45-2(1)1 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8828, Dec. 31, 2007; hereinafter referred to as the “former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”) the same gift tax as the attached list (including general non-reported penalty tax and late-payment penalty) on the non-○○○○ and two other persons according to the result of the tax investigation of the gift tax in 2016, and designated the Plaintiff as a joint and several taxpayer of the above gift tax imposed on the non-○○ and two other persons pursuant to Article 4 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Evidence Nos. 1 through 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The confirmation of the change in shares in 2013 by the director of the regional tax office of ○○○○○ constitutes a tax investigation under the Framework Act on National Taxes, which constitutes a tax investigation under the Framework Act on National Taxes, and thus, the tax investigation of gift tax in 2016 by the director of the regional tax office of ○○○○ constitutes a reinvestigation prohibited under the Framework Act on National Taxes, and the disposition of this case was unlawful.

2) The Plaintiff’s acquisition of new shares under the name of this case ○○○ and two (2) at the time of the instant capital increase with a view to meeting the requirements for the number of promoters necessary for the establishment of the corporation under the Commercial Act at the time of the establishment of ○○○○○○○○, which was owned by the Plaintiff, was merely the Plaintiff’s acquisition of new shares in proportion to the stock holding ratio in the name of ○○ and two (2) shareholders in the instant capital increase process following the instant capital increase under the instant capital increase scheme, and the Plaintiff did not evade taxes at the time. Therefore, the instant disposition was unlawful on the ground that the Plaintiff’s acquisition of new shares in the name of this case ○○ and two (2) was deemed to constitute a title trust for the purpose of tax avoidance

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

1) Whether a written confirmation of the change in shares in 2013 constitutes a tax investigation

(2) Where ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s investigation conducted by a tax official to answer questions and undergo an inspection, a re-audit is prohibited. However, it does not constitute a “tax investigation prohibited by re-audit” even if the taxpayers do not have any duty to answer or accept, or the right to conduct an investigation is not abused. Whether an investigation conducted by a tax official constitutes a “tax investigation prohibited by re-audit” should be comprehensively taken into account the purpose and details of the investigation, the subject and details of the investigation, the materials acquired through the investigation, the scale and period of the investigation, etc. The tax official’s investigation is merely a mere confirmation of the status of the place of business, the mere confirmation of whether there is a specific fact-finding, the issuance of administrative civil petition documents, and the receipt of such materials to the Plaintiff, etc. It is difficult to view that the taxpayer can easily respond to the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s investigation conducted by mail for 20 years.

As such, insofar as ○○○ director’s confirmation of change in shares in 2013 does not constitute a tax investigation, a tax investigation of gift tax in 2016 by the director of the regional tax office of ○○○○ Regional Tax Office cannot be deemed as a reinvestigation prohibited under Article 81-4(2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 14382, Dec. 20, 2016)

2) Whether it constitutes a title trust for the purpose of tax avoidance

구 상속세및증여세법 제45조의2 제1항의 입법취지는 명의신탁제도를 이용한 조세회피행위를 효과적으로 방지하여 조세정의를 실현한다는 취지에서 실질과세원칙에 대한 예외를 인정한 데에 있으므로, 명의신탁의 목적에 조세회피의 목적이 포함되어 있지 않은 경우에만 같은 조항 단서의 적용이 가능하고, 이 경우 조세회피의 목적이 없었다는 점에 관한 입증책임은 이를 주장하는 명의자에게 있다. 따라서 조세회피의 목적이 없었다는 점에 대하여는 조세회피의 목적이 아닌 다른 목적이 있었음을 증명하는 등의 방법으로입증할 수 있다 할 것이나, 입증책임을 부담하는 명의자로서는 명의신탁에 있어 조세회피 목적이 없었다고 인정될 정도로 조세회피와 상관없는 뚜렷한 목적이 있었고, 명의신탁 당시에나 장래에 있어 회피될 조세가 없었다는 점을 객관적이고 납득할 만한 증거자료에 의하여 통상인이라면 의심을 가지지 않을 정도의 입증을 하여야 할 것이다(대법원 2006. 9. 22. 선고 2004두11220 판결, 대법원 2013. 3. 28. 선고 2010두24968판결 등 참조). 원고는 바○○○의 이 사건 유상증자 당시 이○○ 외 2인의 명의로 신주인수 청약 및 신주인수대금 납입을 하고 이○○ 외 2인의 명의로 신주를 인수함으로써 이○○ 외 2인에게 그 신주인수분 주식을 명의신탁하였다. 그런데 ① 원고가 바○○○의 이 사건 유상증자 과정에서 이○○ 외 2인과 사이의 기존의 주식 명의신탁관계를 해소한 후 유상증자에 참여하거나 기존의 주식 명의신탁관계에 얽매임이 없이 자신의 명의로 유상증자에 참여하는 등의 방법을 취하는 데 법률상의 장애가 있다고 보기 어려우므로, 바○○○의 설립 당시의 원고와 이○○ 외 2인 사이의 주식 명의신탁이 상법상의 주식회사 설립에 필요한 발기인 수 요건을 충족하기 위한 것으로 조세회피목적이 없는 것이었다거나 이 사건 유상증자가 비□□□□코리아 주식회사의 증자 제의에 따른 사업상의 목적으로 이루어진 것이라는 등의 사정은 위와 같은 원고의 신주 명의신탁과는 직접적인 관련성이 있다고 볼 수 없고, 달리 원고의 신주 명의신탁이 조세회피와 상관없는 다른 뚜렷한 목적으로 이루어졌다는 점에 대한 입증이 없는 점(오히려 원고가 이 사건 유상증자 당시 이△△의 명의로 4억원의 유상증자대금을 대출받고 2005. 6. 27.자 현금차용증을 허위로 작성하는 등 자신과 이○○ 외 2인 사이의 신주 명의신탁관계를 적극적으로 은폐하기 위한 조치를 한 것은 기존의 주식 명의신탁관계를 드러나게 하지 않고 그대로 유지하여 신주 명의신탁관계에까지 나아감으로써 명의신탁관계를 이용하여 조세를 회피하고자 하는 목적 외에는 이를 설명할 어떤 합리적인 목적을 찾기 어렵다), ② 바○○○은 이 사건 유상증자 당시 당기순이익 등의 실적이 점점 개선되고(당기순이익이 2004 사업연도에 159,648,341원에서 2005 사업연도에 199,531,125원으로 늘어났다), 유상증자 이후로 미처분 이익잉여금이 대폭 증대(2005 사업연도에 약 1억 원에서 2010 사업연도에 약 65억 원으로 늘어났다)되는 등으로 회사가 성장하는 추세에 있었으므로, 이 사건 유상증자 당시 원고에게 이○○ 외 2인에 대한 신주 명의신탁을 통하여 장래 발생할 배당소득에 대한 누진세율의 적용을 회피하여 종합소득세 부담을 경감하려는 목적이 없었다고 단정하기는 어렵고, 원고가 이 사건 유상증자 이후에 이○○ 외 2인에게 명의신탁하여 놓은 자신 소유의 주식을 이○○ 외 2인이 이▤▤ 외 2인에게 증여하는 형태로 이▤▤ 외 2인에게 우회적으로 증여함으로써 증여일 전 10년 이내에 동일인으로부터 받은 증여재산가액의 합계액을 증여세 과세가액에 가산하도록 한 규정의 적용을 회피하여 상당한 액수의 증여세의 부담을 회피하기도 한 점(이 사건 유상증자 이전에 바○○○ 설립 당시의 주식 명의수탁자들 중 이○○ 외 2인을 제외한 나머지 명의수탁자들 명의의 주식이 모두 정리되고 이 사건 유상증자 이후로 이○○ 외 2인 명의의 주식도 증여의 형태로 정리되어 원고와 자녀들인 이▤▤ 외 2인이 바○○○ 주식의 거의 대부분을 보유하게 된 사정에 비추어 이 사건 유상증자 당시 원고에게 장차 이▤▤ 외 2인에 대한 주식의 증여와 관련하여 주식 명의신탁관계를 이용한 우회증여의 방법으로 증여세의 부담을 줄이고자 하는 목적이 없었다고 단정하기도 어렵다) 등을 고려하면, 원고가 이○○ 외 2인에게 신주를 명의신탁할 당시 조세회피의 목적이 없었다고 할 수는 없다.

3) Whether the instant disposition is lawful

The instant disposition cannot be deemed to have been made based on the illegal reinvestigation. Since the Plaintiff’s title trust to the Plaintiff’s Lee○○ and two other persons constitutes a title trust for the purpose of tax avoidance and is deemed a gift pursuant to Article 45-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, the instant disposition by the Defendants is lawful.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Related Acts and subordinate statutes

former Framework Act on National Taxes (Amended by Act No. 15220, Dec. 19, 2017)

Article 81-2 (Establishment and Delivery of Taxpayers' Right Charter)

(2) A tax official shall deliver a document stating the details of the taxpayers' rights charter pursuant to paragraph (1) to taxpayers in any of the following cases:

1. Where he/she asks questions in order to determine or correct the tax base of national tax and the amount of tax, or inspects or investigates the relevant account books, documents or other articles or orders the submission thereof (including the investigation of a tax offence under the Procedure for the Punishment of Tax Offenses Act; hereafter in this Chapter, referred to as "tax investigation");

former Framework Act on National Taxes (Amended by Act No. 14382, Dec. 20, 2016)

Article 81-4 (Prohibition of Abuse of Right of Tax Investigation)

(2) Tax officials may not conduct reinvestigation for the same items of taxation and for the same taxable period, except in any of the following cases:

1. Where obvious evidence exists that prove a suspicion of tax evasion;

2. Where it is necessary to investigate a trading partner;

3. Where mistakes relating to two or more taxable periods exist;

4. Where an investigation is conducted in accordance with a decision on necessary disposition under Article 65 (1) 3 (including cases applied mutatis mutandis in Articles 66 (6) and 81) or a decision on reinvestigation under Article 81-15 (4) 2;

5. Where a taxpayer provides money or goods to a tax official in connection with his/her duties, or arranges the provision of money or goods;

6. Other cases similar to subparagraphs 1 through 5, which are prescribed by Presidential Decree.

former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8828 of Dec. 31, 2007)

Article 4 (Gift Tax Liability)

(1) A donee shall be liable to pay gift tax pursuant to this Act: Provided, That where the donee is a profit-making corporation, the gift tax payable by such profit-making corporation shall be exempted, but where the profit-making corporation, the title holder of the gift tax under Article 45-2, is exempted from paying the gift tax, the actual owner (

(5) In a case falling under paragraph (2) and Article 45-2, the donor shall be jointly and severally liable for payment with the donee even if the donee does not fall under any of subparagraphs of paragraph (4).

Article 45-2 (Presumption of Donation of Title Trust Property)

(1) Where the actual owner and the nominal owner are different in property (excluding land and buildings; hereafter the same shall apply in this Article), the value of which is required to be registered, etc. for the transfer or exercise of rights, notwithstanding Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the nominal owner shall be deemed to have donated, from the actual owner, the value of such property on the date when it is registered, etc. to the nominal owner (where the property is subject to a change of ownership, referring to the date following the end of the year following the year in

1. Where any property is registered in the name of another person or transfer is not made in the name of the actual owner who has acquired the ownership without an intention of tax avoidance;

(2) Where property is registered, etc. in the name of another person, and a change of ownership is not made in the name of the actual owner, or where the name of stocks, etc. is not converted in the name of the actual owner during the grace period, it

(3) In the application of the provisions of paragraph (1), where a register of stockholders or an employee has not been prepared, the decision of transfer shall be made in accordance with the documents concerning stockholders, etc. submitted to the head of tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment and the detailed statement on the state of changes in stocks, etc.

(6) The term "taxs under paragraphs (1) 1 and (2) means the national tax and local tax under subparagraphs 1 and 7 of Article 2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and the customs under the Customs Act.