logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 쟁점주식의 평가액 산정이 잘못되었다는 청구주장의 당부 등
조세심판원 조세심판 | 2017-08-09 | 조심2017전1200 | 상증
【Request Number】

[Request No.] Trial 2017 Before 2017 ( August 9, 2017)

[Items]

【GiftGiftGiftCorrection of Donation】

[Summary of Decision]

[Determination] In light of the fact that the claimant is deemed to be subject to an assessment of premium on the shares of the largest shareholder, etc., but the disposition agency seems to have duly assessed the premium assessment, etc., it is difficult to accept the claimant's argument that the disposition agency's assessment of the outstanding shares of the disposition agency was erroneous. However, on September 14, 2001, the additional payment on the gift tax on Sep. 30, 2003, the limit of the additional payment on the gift tax on Sep. 14, 2001 is 20% of the unpaid tax amount. Accordingly, the disposition that imposed the additional payment on the outstanding shares in excess

[Related Acts]

[Related Acts] Article 63 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

【Disposition】

The imposition of gift tax stated in attached Form 2 shall be made by theO on December 1, 2016 by the applicant.

1. On September 14, 2001, with respect to an additional tax for additional payment on gift tax, the tax amount shall be corrected within the limit of 20% of the unpaid tax amount;

2. The remaining requests for adjudication are dismissed;

【Reasoning】

1. Summary of disposition;

(a) As a result of an investigation of stock change conducted with respect to an OO corporation from September 19, 2016 to November 23, 2016, the OO (hereinafter referred to as “OO”) verified the ownership of the representative director of theOO, the claimant's OO (hereinafter referred to as “OO”), the OOO (hereinafter referred to as “applicants”), the OOO (referring to the OO, April 16, 2015) acquired through capital increase or acquisition (hereinafter referred to as “OOO”) and notified the OOO (hereinafter referred to as “OOO”) of the regulations on taxation data on gift property under title trust under Article 45-2 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act.

B. On December 1, 2016, according to the notice of taxation data issued by the investigating agency, the agency determined and notified gift tax to the applicant as specified in attached Table 2 (in the case of gift tax on an OO, the OO died on April 16, 2015 and the OO, the inheritor, succeeds to the duty to pay the gift tax).

C. The appellant appealed and filed an appeal on February 27, 2017.

2. Opinion of the claimant and the disposition agency;

A. The claimant's assertion

(1) In the event that the shares at issue are assessed as a supplementary assessment method under the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, the value per share of the shares at issue is an OOO value. However, the disposition authority erroneously assessed the value of the shares at issue as an OO value. Accordingly, the pertinent gift tax must be corrected according to the legitimate assessment value.

(2) Since the additional payment for the gift tax on September 14, 2001 as to the gift tax on the donation on December 30, 2003 is 20% of the unpaid tax amount under the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act before the amendment, the additional payment for unfaithful payment determined in excess shall be corrected.

(b) Opinions of disposition agencies;

(1) The claimant asserts that there was an error in calculating the assessed value of the outstanding shares of the agency in relation to the determination of the assessment standard of gift tax and the amount of tax. However, the disposition agency duly assessed based on the accounting data, such as financial statements, etc. submitted by OO pursuant to the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

(A) The amount of capital increase on September 14, 2001 and the amount of capital increase on July 15, 2004. The amount of capital increase on August 10, 2004 is subject to the premium increase on the shares of the largest shareholder, etc. under Article 63(3) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, but the appellant assessed the premium increase by excluding it.

(B) The amount of the capital increase on September 14, 2001, the amount of the capital increase on July 15, 2004, the amount of the capital increase on August 10, 2004, the amount of the capital increase on August 30, 2006, the amount of the capital increase on January 24, 2009, the amount of the corporate tax, etc. that is added to the amount of the liabilities when calculating the net asset value in the appraisal of the stocks, shall be the amount of the corporate tax, the amount of the settled adjustment corporate tax, the amount of the corporate tax refunded, and the estimated amount of the corporate tax, which are not the financial statements that have been settled at the time of the appraisal of stocks,

(C) In the case of the appraisal of shares in 2004, the claimant calculated the number of shares issued by reflecting the amount of capital reduction on December 14, 2004 in calculating the number of shares issued at the time of the assessment of net asset value. However, the time of determining gift tax under title trust is the time of determining the gift tax under title trust, which is the date of capital increase, as it is August 10, 20

(2) Since the additional payment for the gift tax on September 14, 2001 as of Sep. 14, 2001 is 20% of the unpaid tax under the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act prior to the amendment on December 30, 2003, the additional payment for the erroneous payment determined in excess of the limit is expected to be corrected ex officio.

3. Hearing and determination

A. Key issue

(1) Appropriateness of the claim note that the assessment of the appraised value of outstanding shares was wrong

(2) Appropriateness of a claim that the excess of the limit of an additional payment for unfaithful payment shall be corrected

(b) Relevant Acts and subordinate statutes: To enter in the attached Form;

C. Facts and determination

(1) First, as to the issue ①

(A) According to the investigation report prepared by the investigating authority after conducting an investigation into changes in stocks with respect to an OO corporation from September 19, 2016 to November 23, 2016, the petitioners were investigating into the fact of title trust by the OO, the actual owner of the pertinent stocks, and the petitioners also seem to have no different opinions on such fact of title trust.

(B) The appraised value of the key stocks calculated by the disposal agency and the appraised value of the key stocks claimed by the claimant are as follows:

(C) The claimant filed a statement of net profit and loss and net asset value in relation to the calculation of the assessment value of stocks at issue, claiming that it was erroneous for the agency to calculate the assessment value of stocks at issue in relation to the determination of gift tax base and tax amount. Accordingly, the difference between the claimant and the agency as to the assessment value of the largest shareholder, etc.

(D) In full view of the above facts and relevant laws and regulations, the claimant asserts that the disposition agency erred in calculating the tax base and tax amount of gift tax, but according to the electronic simplified assessment details of non-listed stocks for the issue stocks submitted by the disposition agency, the net profit and loss amount related to the calculation of the assessed value of stocks at issue, and the net asset value statement, etc., the claimant's assertion that the disposition agency erred in calculating the assessed value of stocks at issue is difficult to accept in light of the following: (a) the amount of capital increase on September 14, 2001; (b) the amount of capital increase on July 15, 2004; and (c) the amount of capital increase on August 10, 2004, the largest shareholder, etc. under Article 63(3) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is subject to the assessment by exclusion of the assessed value; and (b) the other disposition agency seems to have duly assessed the assessed value based on the accounting data, such as financial statements submitted by

(2) For the following issues:

(A) Before the amendment by Act No. 7010 of Dec. 30, 2003, Article 78(2) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides for the limit of the amount equivalent to 20/100 of the amount of the unpaid tax on the amount of the paid-in additional tax. However, the provision of the partial amendment by Act No. 7010 of Dec. 30, 2003 was deleted, and the corresponding provision of the amendment was applied to the portion at which the due date for payment comes after the enforcement of the Act. In this regard, the disposition agency provided in the written reply that the additional tax on the paid-in additional tax on September 14, 2001, which was determined in excess of 20% of the amount of the unpaid tax on the paid-in additional tax on the gift of Sep. 14, 2001, but it was not submitted.

(B) The Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, before the partial amendment by Act No. 7010 on December 30, 2003, provides for the limit of the amount equivalent to 20/100 of the unpaid tax amount on the unpaid tax amount due for erroneous payment under Article 78(2). Although the provision was deleted as partial amendment by Act No. 7010 on December 30, 2003, the pertinent provision on the gift tax as of September 14, 2001 is applied from the payment due date due after the enforcement of the Act. Thus, the additional payment on the gift tax as of December 30, 2003 shall be deemed to be 20% of the unpaid tax amount due under the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act prior to the amendment by Act No. 7010 on December 30, 2003. Therefore, the disposition of erroneous payment for erroneous payment is determined and notified.

4. Conclusion

This case shall be decided as ordered in accordance with Article 81 and Article 65 (1) 2 and 3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, because the petition for appeal is partly well-grounded as a result of the review.

arrow