Seoul Administrative Court-2015-Gu Group-1216 ( November 27, 2015)

Cho High-2015-Seoul Government-1311 (Law No. 19, 2015)

The burden of proving the necessary expenses of the transfer income

The burden of proof of tax base is, in principle, a tax authority's burden of proof of revenue and necessary expenses in a lawsuit seeking revocation of transfer income tax disposition, but necessary expenses are difficult to prove by the tax authority. Therefore, it is rather consistent with the concept of fairness to recognize the necessity of proof to the taxpayer considering the difficulty of proof or equity between the parties.

Article 96. Transfer Price, Article 97. Necessary expenses for Transfer Income

2016Nu30318 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

AA

BB Director of the Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2015Gudan12116 decided November 27, 2015

September 1, 2016

October 6, 2016

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 00,000,000 on January 13, 2015 by the defendant against the plaintiff on January 13, 2015 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's judgment is as follows, except for the addition or dismissal of some of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows, and therefore, it refers to the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance pursuant to Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

○ Chapter 4, Section 11, ".................................." added "(1.0,000,000 won as land sale price in the Plaintiff's passbook on February 3, 2006, and 00,000,000 won as land sale price for each deposit is 00,000,000 won."

Part 4, Nos. 17 and 18 of the title 4 were prepared in the name of the head of the site, and the above company was now closed, and there was no date of preparation of each letter. The part was prepared on December 19, 2005 in the name of CCC, which is the head of the site. Since the above document does not clearly state the subject of rights and the subject of obligations, the relationship between the parties is unclear, the construction period is unclear, and the above company was closed at present.

The author and the date of preparation in the letter of No. 5, No. 12 and No. 13 shall be considered as the "preparer".

2. Conclusion

Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is groundless.