Tax Tribunal 2013 Swiss0822

The fact that the actual employer is not deducted from the taxable value of inherited property for the loans of the inheritee who is an inheritor.

The plaintiff asserts that the loan at issue is intended to pay the pre-existing debts of the inheritee, but the plaintiff did not present objective evidence, etc., so the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

2013Guhap18681 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing inheritance tax

YAA

Director of the District Office

October 25, 2013

November 29, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

On July 1, 2012, the Defendant revoked the imposition of the inheritance tax OOO on the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff stated in the complaint that the date of the disposition was July 3, 2012, but the date of disposition was July 1, 2012, according to the statement in the evidence No. 1, the date of disposition was July 1, 2012).

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 9, 2010, the heirs, including the Plaintiff, who died on August 24, 2010, reported the value of inherited property to the Defendant on December 9, 2010 by OOOO, the amount of deduction (public charges OOO, funeral expenses OO, financial liabilities OOO), OOO, the taxable value of inherited property, and the inheritance tax base by OOOOOO.

B. As a result of the inheritance tax investigation, the Defendant: (a) as a result of the Plaintiff’s inheritance tax investigation, the amount of public charges out of the deduction amount reported by the heir, including the Plaintiff, is registration tax following the inheritance registration; (b) the amount of funeral expenses exceeds the credit limit; and (c) the amount of the financial obligations is each deducted on the ground that the amount exceeds the credit limit; and (d) the amount of the financial obligations was loaned from the J bank as security of 101, 1103, and 103, OO-dong 282 CCC apartment (hereinafter “CC apartment”) owned by the decedent, but in fact, the Plaintiff was deemed to have been used as the purchase fund of 101, 703, and was deducted on July 1, 2012 by deeming that it was actually used as the Plaintiff’s acquisition fund of 101, 101, 703, and accordingly, deducted the Plaintiff on July 1, 2012.

C. On September 17, 2012, the Plaintiff appealed to the Tax Tribunal on February 4, 2013, but was dismissed on April 19, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

From around 1980, the Plaintiff’s mother, as his wife and the Plaintiff’s mother, lent OOOOE to the Plaintiff as the part payments under CCC apartment 101 Dong 1103, and the Plaintiff’s mother borrowed OOOOE from EOOD to the name of director funds, school expenses, and living expenses. After EOOE’s death, OOOOE demanded the Plaintiff to make payment of KRW 10,000 on December 7, 2006 without threatening’s intimidation’s intimidation’s intimidation’s intimidation’s intimidation’s intimidation 101dong 1103, and then, OOOOE was temporarily lent to the Plaintiff as part payments under the Plaintiff’s name of COCC 101dong 703, and the remaining OOOO was withdrawn from OOF’s checks to the Plaintiff’s account.

On the other hand, the Defendant asserted that the amount that the Defendant borrowed by the decedent as collateral 101 Dong 1103 was used by the Plaintiff as the purchase fund for the CCC apartment 101 Dong 703. However, the Plaintiff paid the down payment, such as interim settlement of retirement pay, etc. However, the Plaintiff paid the intermediate payment from the decedent, but the intermediate payment paid out of the above loans from the wife, but paid the borrowed amount from the wife’s location, and the remainder of the CCC apartment 101 Dong 703 was paid as the amount borrowed from the J bank as collateral and the third party.

Therefore, the instant disposition based on the premise that the amount that the decedent borrowed as security 101 1103 dong 101 is used as the Plaintiff’s purchase fund 101 dong 703 is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) On December 7, 2006, the decedent was granted a loan from the J bank as security of CCC apartment 101 and 1103, and on the same day, the loans were deposited in the J bank account (Account Number: O-OO-O-OOOOOOOOOOO) under the name of the decedent, and the remainder of the OOOO was transferred to the J bank account under the name of the decedent, and then the beneficiary certificates (Account Number: O-O-O-O-OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO) were deposited on December 27, 2006.

2) The Plaintiff paid a loan interest on behalf of the inheritee by depositing the interest on the loan to be paid by the inheritee to the Jbank’s account under the name of the inheritee (OO-O-O-OOOO-OO-OO-OO-OO-OO-O-O-O-O).

3) On October 12, 2006, the Plaintiff and KimGG (the Plaintiff’s wife appears to be the Plaintiff) concluded a sales contract with HH apartment 101 Dong 703, 103, to purchase the purchase price at the purchase price, and the down payment OOOO of the intermediate payment was agreed to pay the remainder OOO of the intermediate payment on December 7, 2006 and December 28, 2006, respectively.

4) On December 28, 2006, the Plaintiff took out a loan from the JB bank as security of CCC apartment 101 Dong 703, 2006.

5) On January 30, 2007, FF deposited the total amount of OO directors, O-O-O-O-OOOO directors, and O-O0 won in a new bank account (Account Number: O-O-O-O-OOOO) in the name of NAD.

6) We present at the court of this case as a witness, and asked E to lend money from 1980 to 1980, and lent OOO in total over several hundred and eight times. Diplomatic statements to E to the effect that it was "no document prepared or recorded a loan, but it was lent OOO in cash to E."

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 3, 4 (including each number), Eul evidence 2, Eul's testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) Since an inheritee’s obligation to be deducted from the value of inherited property belongs to a special reason that exceptionally affects the determination of the taxable amount of inheritance taxes, the liability for assertion as to the existence of such obligation shall be deemed to be on the part of the obligor disputing the taxable value (see Supreme Court Decision 83Nu410, Dec. 13, 1983).

2) In light of the following circumstances, comprehensively considering the aforementioned facts and the purport of the entire arguments as seen earlier, evidence Nos. 4-2, evidence No. 4-2, evidence No. 3, evidence No. 4-1, and evidence No. 5, which correspond to the Plaintiff’s above assertion, are hard to believe, and evidence No. 1, 2, and 3, evidence No. 4-1, and evidence No. 5 are insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

① It is difficult to believe that there was no certificate of borrowing or a document to record the lending of money from the present court to the EE in a number of times from 1980 to 1980, while it stated that there was no document to lend money to the EE. It is difficult to believe that there was no explanation from the Plaintiff or E.I.D. on how to specify the total amount of money borrowed by E.I.D., who did not prepare a certificate of borrowing or a document related to the lending of money from around 1980 to 26 years before the date of borrowing money from the J.J. (26 years since the time of borrowing money from the J.J.).

② According to the Plaintiff’s assertion, an OOO member was used in the intermediate payment for the Plaintiff’s CCC apartment 101 and 703, out of the funds borrowed by the Defendant as security of CCC apartment 101 1103 and J bank. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant borrowed money from the wife’s seat and paid OOO members to the inheritee. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this.

③ The withdrawal from the beneficiary certificates account of the inheritee is December 27, 2006, which is the day before the remainder payment date of the Plaintiff’s CCC Apartment 101 and 703 ( December 28, 2006). The Plaintiff asserted that the remainder OOOO of the CCC apartment 101 and 703 was paid as the borrowed OO or loan money borrowed from JJ bank on December 28, 2006, which is the remainder payment date of the Plaintiff’s payment date. However, even if the Plaintiff’s assertion was followed, it is difficult to acknowledge that the remainder of OOOOD borrowed OO or 703 from the borrower’s borrowing of the above apartment from another person (the Plaintiff’s borrowing of OO or 703 from DOD at the time of a request for a trial). Accordingly, there is no possibility that the Plaintiff withdrawn 206O or 200 out of the remainder of the beneficiary certificates borrowed from another person.

④ There is no evidence to acknowledge that the pre-paid money deposited by the FF into the pre-paid account on January 30, 2007 is the amount that the decedent received from the J bank. According to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the decedent or the FF, upon its request, withdrawn the pre-OO on December 27, 2006 from the beneficiary certificates in the name of the decedent, as a check, and deposited it into the pre-paid account on January 30, 2007. Accordingly, it is difficult to readily understand that the Defendant had withdrawn the large amount of the pre-paid money that was expected to be deposited into the pre-paid account on January 30, 207.

⑤ On behalf of the decedent, the Plaintiff assumed the interest on loans that the decedent is obligated to pay to J bank.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.