District Court-2014-Gu Partnership-7249

The early 2013 middle 1320

In imposing gift tax on profits accrued from capital reduction, it does not require that there be a purpose of tax avoidance.

(1) In a case where a corporation retires its shares or equity shares in order to reduce its capital, the amount equivalent to such profits shall be deemed as the gift value of the major shareholder in a case where the major shareholder in a special relationship with the former gains a profit.

Article 17 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act: Donation of Benefits due to Capital Reduction

Seoul High Court 2015Nu51011 Revocation of Disposition on Imposition of Gift Tax

The United States of America 1

Head of the Pakistan Tax Office

Suwon District Court Decision 2014Guhap7249 Decided June 23, 2015

May 19, 2015

June 23, 2015

The judgment of the first instance court shall be revoked. The imposition of gift tax of KRW 3,132,014,690 on December 4, 2012 by the head of the second instance court against the Plaintiff DamageA on December 3, 2012 and the imposition of KRW 141,672,830 on the gift tax of KRW 141,672,830 on December 3, 2012 against the Plaintiff DamageA on December 3, 2012 shall be revoked. The imposition of KRW 2,594,874,170 on the gift tax of KRW 206 against the Plaintiff DamageA on April 23, 2015 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;

This judgment is based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the dismissal of the following contents. Therefore, this judgment is based on Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(1) Parts 3, 7, and 9 are "the defendant" to be "the director of the tax office having jurisdiction over the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the Republic of Korea", and "the defendant" to be "the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the Republic of Korea" to be "the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the Republic of Korea".

(2) The interval between pages 6 through 6 shall be as follows:

D. Whether the imposition of additional tax against the Plaintiff DamageA is legitimate

The revocation of a tax imposition disposition, including additional tax, is sufficient if it does not require a special form and is possible to objectively revoke it. If the tax authority imposed a penalty tax but imposed a new disposition premised on the revocation of the disposition, barring any special circumstance, it shall be deemed that the initial disposition was revoked (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du2076, Nov. 25, 2004).

However, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 12, 13, and Eul evidence Nos. 8, 9, and 10, following the first instance court's determination that the tax payment notice of gift tax for 2006 years from December 4, 2012 was unlawful due to the failure of the first instance court to disclose the type of additional tax and the basis for calculation of the amount of tax, etc., the head of the high-tech Tax Office issued a new disposition imposing penalty tax for 2006 against the plaintiff Ba on April 23, 2015. Accordingly, the purport of the first instance court's determination on May 12, 2015 that "the purport of the disposition to revoke the disposition to impose penalty tax for 206" and "the grounds for filing an application to modify the purport of the original disposition to claim for revocation of the disposition to impose penalty tax for 3 years from April 23, 2015," and the purport of the above disposition to impose penalty tax for 4 years 206.3.

Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the imposition of additional tax on the gift tax for the year 2006, which the director of the tax office of Pakistan imposed against the Plaintiff DamageA on December 4, 2012, was lawfully revoked and terminated. The imposition of additional tax on the gift tax for the year 2006, which the director of the tax office of Goyang Tax Office imposed on the Plaintiff DamageA on April 23, 2015, does not constitute double taxation. Accordingly, the above assertion by the Plaintiff DamageA is without merit.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiffs' claims shall be dismissed because they are without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just and without merit, and all of the plaintiffs' appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.