The disposition to determine the acquisition value of the converted value as the acquisition value by deeming the sales contract to be retroactively prepared.

If the evaluation by the officer in charge of high-tech tax evasion finds that each sales contract was made retroactively, and the transaction amount prior to the implementation of the approval seal contract system has been made in the form of an approval seal contract, etc., the disposition that the sales contract was made retroactively shall be legitimate.

Article 95 of the Income Tax Act, Necessary expenses for transferred assets under Article 163 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act.

2016Guhap487 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

Maximum KK

EE Director of the Tax Office

May 17, 2017

June 21, 2017

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The disposition of imposition by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on January 5, 2016 of the capital gains tax of 116,565, the capital gains tax of 116,585, and the capital gains tax of 11,655, and the local income tax of 11,656 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. As to the forest land listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as “each forest of this case”), the registration of transfer of ownership of 1/2 shares in the name of the plaintiff and Sung AA was completed due to the sale and purchase on December 2, 1983, and on August 1, 1984, the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the plaintiff as the reason for the sale and purchase was completed again on August 1, 1984.

B. On January 2, 2015, the Plaintiff sold each of the instant forest land to 350,000 won to HuB Co., Ltd., and completed the registration of ownership transfer on February 4, 2015.

C. Since then, the Plaintiff reported the transfer income tax by applying the special long-term holding deduction under the Income Tax Act (at the time, the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant evidentiary documents a sales contract of KRW 19,50,000,000, the sales contract of KRW 150,000,000,000, and KRW 20,000,000,000,000,0000,000 won for each forest of this case as of August 3, 1984, and the sales contract of KRW 150,00,00,000,000,000,000,000 won, and KRW 2,00,00,000,000,000,000,000).

D. As a result of the on-site investigation of the Plaintiff around October 2015, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the submitted sales contract was made after the fact that the acquisition cost is unclear; (b) deemed the acquisition value of forest land calculated according to the standard market price at the time of transfer and acquisition of forest land; and (c) submitted only receipts prepared without attaching financial data on real estate introduction expenses, and did not recognize necessary expenses on receipts; and (c) deemed that the Plaintiff had resided in the FFF limit, which is the location of each forest of this case, as the land for non-business, and denied the special long-term deduction even by deeming the relevant forest as the land for non-business use. Accordingly, the Defendant decided and notified the Plaintiff on January 1, 2016, the income tax 116,565, the capital gains tax , the capital gains tax 11,656, and the capital gains tax 11,656, and the income tax

E. On March 2 X, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a request for review with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service for cancellation of the instant disposition that did not recognize the actual acquisition price of each forest of this case. However, on June 2, 2016, the Commissioner of the National Tax Service rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s request for review on the grounds that: (a) on June 2 X, 1983, there was no seller’s and buyer’s resident registration number under the sales contract; (b) on August 1, 1984, the approval seal contract form for the sales contract was enforced since October 198; and (c) as a result of the appraisal by the GG regional tax office, it was determined that each sales contract was retroactively prepared.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 7 (including those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1, 2, and 6 through 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

(a) Relevant statutes;

Attached Form 2 shall be as listed in attached Table 2.

B. Determination

The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case was conducted by the public official in charge without any data research on the transaction price, and even during that process, the plaintiff also concealed or damaged the original copy of the sales contract submitted by the plaintiff, and sought the revocation of the disposition of this case.

However, in light of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the aforementioned facts, including the evidence mentioned above, and all the circumstances and circumstances as to the disposition of this case, which can be known by the overall purport of the arguments and arguments, the disposition of this case is legitimate unless the defendant separately reflects the amount of the introduction of real estate equivalent to necessary expenses and the amount of the special deduction for long-term holding, which is deducted from the amount of transfer income, in accordance with the pertinent provisions of the Income Tax Act, by deeming that each sales contract was retroactively prepared as seen earlier, as seen in

3. Conclusion

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