Review Transfer 2009-0140 ( October 27, 2009)

Fairness of a disposition imposing tax on converted acquisition value as it is impossible to verify the actual acquisition value.

In light of the fact that the Plaintiff fails to present any objective data on the payment of the purchase price, etc., it is difficult to believe the content of the sales contract submitted by the Plaintiff as it is and there is no other data to recognize or confirm the actual transaction

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

Park ○

Head of Namgu Tax Office

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff shall bear the litigation costs.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposing KRW 257,287,910 on the Plaintiff on December 1, 2008 shall be revoked.

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

A. On April 17, 1997, the Plaintiff acquired each land listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “each land of this case”) and transferred each land of this case to JungCC on October 9, 2007.

B. The Plaintiff reported and paid KRW 9,803,955 of the capital gains tax calculated by using the transfer value of each of the instant lands as KRW 510,000,000, and acquisition value as KRW 490,000.

C. On December 1, 2008, the Defendant corrected and notified the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”) of KRW 115,686,810, which was the amount converted according to the standard market price on the ground that the actual transaction price at the time of acquisition of each of the instant land could not be confirmed, as of December 1, 2008, based on the acquisition price, KRW 115,686,810, which was the amount converted according to the standard market price.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 to 3 (including number ; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the dispositions of the instant case are legal.

A. The plaintiff's principal

The Plaintiff purchased each of the instant lands from the headB in KRW 490,000,000, and submitted a sales contract as evidentiary documents, but did not recognize it as the actual transaction price, and the instant disposition converted the acquisition price according to the standard market price is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

(1) Articles 96(1), 97(1)1(a) and (b), and 114(7) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20618, Feb. 22, 2008; hereinafter “former Income Tax Act”) and Articles 163(12) and 176-2(1) and (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20618, Feb. 22, 2008; hereinafter “former Income Tax Act”) provide that in calculating gains on the transfer of real estate, the actual transaction value shall be imposed in principle in calculating gains on the transfer of real estate, but if it is impossible to recognize or verify the actual transaction value at the time of acquisition by books, sales contracts, receipts, or other documentary evidence, the acquisition value shall not be deemed the actual transaction value reported by the taxpayer, but shall be based on the example of business example, appraisal value, conversion value, and the

(2) In the instant case, the key issue is whether the Plaintiff can be recognized or verified as the actual transaction price at the time of acquisition of each of the instant land, which was reported by the Plaintiff as the acquisition price of each of the instant land.

In light of the following facts and circumstances, i.e., the sales contract submitted by the Plaintiff for the verification of the actual transaction price at the time of acquisition (hereinafter “the sales contract of this case”), i.e., 490,000 won were purchased from B at the time of acquisition, but the registration was made only under 20,000 won on the land listed in the separate sheet No. 2 at the time of acquisition of each of this case (hereinafter “2”), 200,000 won was registered under 30,000 won, and 40,000 won were recorded on the remaining land under 10,000 won, 40,000 won were listed on 20,000 won, and 40,000 won were listed on 10,000 won, 30,000 won, 40,000 won were listed on 20,000 won, and 9,00 won were stated on 30,000 won.

Therefore, the instant disposition that determined acquisition value by converting the actual transaction price at the time of the acquisition of each of the instant lands by the standard market price is lawful.

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.