National High Court 1996Gyeong0151 (Law No. 530, 1996)
The claimant asserts that 100 million won should be deducted from the gift value because 100 million won should be deducted from the new construction funds of the building. The taxation is not related to omission of the appropriation of the rental deposit, since the claimant paid the loan from the ○○ Mutual Savings and Finance Company, which he received for the construction of the building by the husband, and imposed on him
Article 29-2 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act
I dismiss the appeal.
1. Outline of the original disposition;
The claimant newly constructed a neighborhood living facility and a house of 1,478.92 square meters (hereinafter referred to as "sub-building") on the ground of 330 square meters of the OOO site in North-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City, which is the husband of 91.4.16.
The disposition agency newly constructed the 300,000,000,000 won collected by the claimant at the O Mutual Savings and Finance Company of 90.4.9, and 202,00,000,000 won of the security deposit for the key building in question, and confirmed that 295,000,000 won out of the above loan 30,000,000 won was paid with the transfer price of the real estate owned by the claimant's husband of 91.7.15, and determined that 15.7.15, the claimant had increased the amount from her husband, and notified 105,750,000 won to the 15.7.15.
On August 31, 95, the claimant filed an appeal on December 22, 95.
2. Opinions of the applicant and the Commissioner of the National Tax Service;
1) The husband’s payment of real estate proceeds by the O Mutual Savings and Finance Company is not a donation but a loan to the Fund.
2) In addition, the above new building was leased to the her children, and the security deposit of 100 million won was paid to the her husband’s transfer income tax of 67,362,100 won and part of the funds financed by the said her husband from the said her husband due to other expenses, 100 million won and gift tax should be imposed.
(b) Opinions of the Commissioner of the National Tax Service;
The claimant asserts that 100 million won should be deducted from the gift value because 100 million won should be deducted from the new source of the building at issue. This case's taxation is related to the omission of the appropriation of the rental deposit, since the claimant paid the loan of the OF to construct the building at issue and imposed the loan by the husband, considering it as the gift by the husband.
3. Hearing and determination
A. Key issue
It is to confirm the fact that the claimant's obligation has been repaid by the husband of the claimant, and to establish the legitimacy of the disposition imposing gift tax by deeming it as a gift.
(b) the relevant regulations;
Article 29-2(1)1 of the Inheritance Tax Act provides that a person who acquired property by a third party’s donation and has a domicile in Korea at the time of donation shall pay gift tax. Article 34-3 of the same Act provides that a person who is exempted from, acquired, or repaid to a third party shall be deemed to have been donated an amount equivalent to the benefits arising from such exemption, acquisition, or repayment.
C. Facts and determination
This case is a case where there is no dispute as to whether the claimant's OO, the husband of the claimant, has paid 295,000,000 won out of 300,000,000 won from the O Mutual Savings and Finance Company, 90.7.15, the claimant has collected the above funds from the husband, and the claimant has not presented specific proof as to whether the above funds have been raised from the husband.
Therefore, this case is a cash transaction between husband and wife, and since it is not confirmed that the claimant raised the above funds, the husband of the claimant has donated 295,000,000 won to the claimant on July 15, 191 under the provision of the law exhibited, and it is reasonable to determine the Cheong Branch Office's decision.
In addition, it is unclear whether the claimant's husband paid the capital gains tax of KRW 68,462,100, which is notified to the claimant's husband, because 100 million has been repaid, and it is not confirmed whether the above donation was returned to the 295,00,000,000.
(d)The decision is made in accordance with the provisions of Article 81 and Article 65(1)2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, on the ground that the request is without merit for the foregoing reasons.