If the contents of the final return on tax base made by the taxpayer are different and it is not reliable, the burden of proving the truth of the details of the report.

As a matter of principle, the tax authority has the burden of proving the facts that constitute the requirement for taxation in a lawsuit for revocation of imposition, so in calculating gains on transfer and imposing gains on the basis of the standard market price on the basis that the final return on the tax base was filed differently from the actual transaction price, the tax authority has the burden of proving that the details of the report were different from the actual transaction price. However, if there are special circumstances that are not reliable from the empirical rule because the contents of the report are exceptional in light of the transaction circumstances, the taxpayer has the burden to prove that the details of the report

Article 100 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3271 of Dec. 13, 1980), Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Head of North Busan District Tax Office

Daegu High Court Decision 83Gu232 delivered on April 19, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.

In principle, the tax authority has the burden of proving the fact that the tax base, etc. for taxation is the tax base in a lawsuit seeking revocation of imposition. Therefore, in calculating gains on transfer based on the standard market price, the final return on the gains on transfer of assets filed by the taxpayer different from the actual transaction price, the tax authority has the burden of proving that the details of the report were different from the actual transaction price. However, in special circumstances where the contents of the report are exceptional, and it is impossible to prove that the details of the report are different from the actual transaction price, the taxpayer has the burden to prove that the details of the report are different from the actual transaction price.

However, according to the reasoning of the judgment in this case, the court below held that the plaintiff acquired the building site of 26,245,000 won in collaboration with the non-party 1 and constructed the 1 factory unit on the ground of October 16, 1979, and on August 20, 1980, the actual transaction price of the transfer of assets transferred to the non-party 2 to the non-party 2 was 26,380,600 won or 20,000 won in the final return on the tax base of the transfer price of assets, the transfer price of 26,380,60 won is 52,590,000 won in this case and the above non-party 1 acquired 52,59,000 won in the factory site of this case and acquired 1/2 shares of the factory site of this case, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the transfer price of the plaintiff's shares in this case's final return without any specific evidence.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Shin Jong-sung (Presiding Justice)