Where land and buildings are provided together, they shall be calculated based on the value of supply.

Since the value-added tax on the value of the building is stipulated separately in the sale amount, it is legitimate to calculate the land and buildings based on the value of supply, and it is legitimate to deduct the cumulative cumulative value of the price entered in the register by the plaintiff from the acquisition value of the building.

Article 64 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act shall be calculated on the supply value of buildings, etc.

2018Guhap4007 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax, etc.

Kim 00

○ Head of tax office

oly 31, 2018

December 14, 2018

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The imposition of capital gains tax against the Defendant**,**,**,**,*****(including additional tax) on the Plaintiff, the imposition of value-added tax****,****,***,***,***(including additional tax) on the Plaintiff, respectively.

1. Circumstances and facts of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff acquired *.**.***. Seoul** Dong** Dong**** land (******** the instant land). The Plaintiff registered as a real estate rental business on 1989**.**. * the business on 1991.*** the 191.* the 2nd, 6nd, 6nd, * the 2nd, 2nd and hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”). The Plaintiff engaged in real estate rental business after newly building neighborhood living facilities (the 2nd, 6nd, 2nd and 2nd) on the instant land.

B. The Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Plaintiff to sell the instant land and buildings collectively (hereinafter referred to as “instant sales contract”). The instant sales contract includes the following: (a) the seller’s seller is the seller, the separate sale price of the instant land and buildings; (b) the outstanding date and delivery date; (c) the special terms and conditions; and (d) the total purchase price of the buyer, *,00,000,000,000, and (c) the special terms and conditions.

C. The Plaintiff transferred the ownership of the land and building in this case to the non-party cooperative*. The Plaintiff issued a tax invoice of KRW 1,**,00,00 to the supply value of the building in this case.

(d) On December 25, 2016, the Plaintiff reported the value of supply of the building in this case as KRW 1,***,00,00, and on March 25, 2016, the value of supply of the building in this case was KRW 1,000, and on March 1, 2016**.* the conversion price of the land in this case as stated below*,******,******,****, the book value of the building in this case (actual transaction price)*******,***,************,**************************************************) as acquisition value respectively.

(e) The defendant considers that the transfer value of the land and the building in this case is unclear as follows: ① Article 100 (2) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 14389, Dec. 20, 2016; hereinafter the same shall apply); Article 166 (6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act; Article 64 subparagraph 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 27472, Aug. 31, 2016; hereinafter the same shall apply) regarding the transfer value of the land in this case as the standard market price of the land and the building in this case (**,*****,***,**, building*,**** the transfer value of the building in this case******** the transfer value of the land in this case********** the transfer value of the building in this case************* the transfer value of the land in this case*********.

(f) In addition, the Defendant issued a correction and notification of the value-added tax calculated in proportion to the Plaintiff as above,*,**,**,**,**,****,**,*, the difference between the existing tax amount and the existing tax amount,***,***,****,*** (hereinafter referred to as the “value-added tax imposition disposition in this case”) (hereinafter referred to as the “value-added tax disposition in this case and referred to as the “each disposition in this case”).

G. The Plaintiff calculated the actual expenses required for the construction of the building of this case in the account book, and the book value of the building of this case was changed due to the adjustment of depreciation costs according to the changes in the building repair and lease profit, so the book value of the building of this case is true. On the basis of this, the Plaintiff stated the transfer value of the building of this case in consultation with the buyer, thereby not falling under the case where the acquisition value of the building of this case and the transfer value of the building of this case are unclear.***,**,*****

H. The Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on the ground that the annual value of the instant building and the depreciation costs of the instant building are changed in the Plaintiff’s financial statements via computerized data from the National Tax Service as follows, and it is difficult to recognize the book value of the instant building as the real acquisition value because the book value changes without any reason and the depreciation costs required to be depreciated are appropriated without consistency. While the transfer value of the instant land is higher than 150% than the standard market value, the transfer value of the instant land is higher than 70% than the standard market value, and each of the divided values of the instant building cannot be reasonably calculated.

I. Meanwhile, as of December 31, 2015, the basic and the final value (amount to be depreciated) of the instant building as of December 31, 2015, submitted by the Plaintiff upon filing a report of capital gains tax on the instant land and building, and the statement of statement of financial position and the statement of depreciation of the building as of December 31, 2015, is ****, the accumulated amount of depreciation,

(j) The Plaintiff’s business operator who owns a large number of real estate and operates a leasing business, and the National Tax Service’s computerized data are subject to double-entry bookkeeping to pay global income tax from 192. However, the Plaintiff’s balance sheet and income statement related to the instant building leasing business from 1991 to 194 is not confirmed.

Facts that there is no dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 to 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The amount the Plaintiff received by transferring the land and buildings of this case is KRW****** and value-added tax****** in total,** in total, and according to each of the dispositions of this case, the total amount including value-added tax on the building of this case has become KRW****** in total, *** in terms of the classification of the value of the land and buildings of this case, and thus, in applying Article 64 subparagraph 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, it is unclear whether the value-added tax was included in the initial VAT separate contract *** in the sales amount remaining after excluding KRW * in terms of the sales amount, it is deemed that the value-added tax was included in the value-added tax pursuant to Article 29 (7) of the Value-Added Tax Act. Accordingly, each of the dispositions

2) The Defendant denied the Plaintiff’s statement of financial position without credibility, and imposed the transfer income tax in this case by deeming the depreciation costs to be deducted from the acquisition value as the accumulated depreciation amount stated on the Plaintiff’s statement of financial position ********* in the accumulated depreciation amount indicated on the Plaintiff’s statement of financial position. However, according to the National Tax Service’s computer network, the Plaintiff’s depreciation cost that was deducted as necessary expenses while calculating the business income on the instant building ******* in calculating the transfer income tax on the instant building pursuant to Article 97(3) of the Income Tax Act, the Defendant must deduct KRW ***

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Determination on the first argument

The Plaintiff does not dispute the Defendant’s application of Article 64 subparag. 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, on the ground that the classification of the value of the instant land and buildings is unclear, and the Defendant does not dispute the application of Article 64 subparag. 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, but the Defendant’s total actual transaction price of the instant land and buildings *********** in total of the sales price of the instant land and buildings ***** in advance agreed by the Plaintiff and the Nonparty Cooperative that the value-added tax on the instant building was separate from the sales price, and then the sales price of the instant land and buildings ** in total of the sales price at the time of conclusion of the instant contract ** in consideration of the fact that the value-added tax on the building, which is a business operator, can be deducted from the sales price of the said land and building * in consideration of the fact that the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance, can be said

Therefore, it cannot be deemed unclear whether value-added tax has been included in the total actual transaction price of the land and buildings of this case******* calculated the respective transfer value of the land and buildings of this case (value of supply of the building of this case) in proportion to the standard market price of the land and buildings of this case. The plaintiff's assertion in this part is not accepted.

2) Determination on the second argument

A) Article 97(1) and (3) of the Income Tax Act provides for the acquisition value of necessary expenses to be deducted from the transfer value when calculating gains on transfer of a resident. Article 97(1) and (3) of the said Act provides that the acquisition value shall be the amount obtained by deducting the amount either included or to be included in the necessary expenses when calculating business income in each taxable period as depreciation costs for the holding period of transferred assets. This is because depreciation costs were already included in the necessary expenses in the process of calculating business income in order to prevent double appropriation, such depreciation amount shall not be included

B) Meanwhile, in general, in a lawsuit seeking the revocation of a tax imposition disposition, the burden of proving the fact of taxation requirements is a taxable person, but where it is proved that the fact of taxation requirements has been presumed in light of the empirical rule in the course of a specific lawsuit, unless the taxpayer proves that the pertinent fact at issue is inappropriate to apply the empirical rule or that there are special circumstances to exclude the application of such empirical rule in the pertinent case, it cannot be readily concluded that the pertinent tax disposition is an unlawful disposition that fails to meet the taxation requirements (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Du60341, Jun. 10,

C) Upon reporting gains on transfer of the building of this case, the Plaintiff calculated the acquisition value of the building of this case by deducting KRW ********* won as the book value of the building of this case, and rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Tax Tribunal would not trust the book value on the basis of changes in the book value of the building of this case and the details of depreciation costs in the computerized data of the National Tax Service. As seen above, the Plaintiff asserted that the depreciation costs confirmed by the National Tax Service should be deducted from the acquisition value of the building of this case, since only the depreciation costs confirmed by the computerized data of this case were included in the necessary expenses only after the lawsuit was dismissed. The Plaintiff, while owning a large number of real estate, transferred real estate exceeding 10 billion won and reported gains on transfer, deducted the cumulative depreciation costs recorded in the book and deducted them from the cumulative depreciation costs, and thus, it is difficult to view the Plaintiff’s acquisition value as the cumulative depreciation costs in this case’s calculation of the depreciation costs in this case is also unlawful.

3. Conclusion

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